Tom Lammers wrote:

Indeed. Particularly for those who think the Codes should permit description of new taxa electronically. This highlights what utter nonsense and folly such a move would be. Chasing after "the latest thing" and "the current trend" is fine for teenyboppers, fashion, and music. As scientists, however, we have an obligation to posterity to eschew such foolishness.

I disagree. As I pointed out in my reply to Dick Jensen the other day on Taxacom, I believe a strong case can be made that electronic information has the *potential* for far greater persistence (not to mention access) than paper-based publication. The big question is: How can we *realize* this potential? I think most of us would agree that we have not yet realized it (though the main obstacles are not exemplified by the demise of the Phyloinformatics journal -- it's not an issue for publishers, it's an issue for consumers). Fortunately, the Codes have not yet changed to accommodate online-only publication, either. But the real foolishness, in my opinion, would be to *fail* to pursue electronic/internet means of publication and information dissemination for taxonomy. Indeed, I think it is our *responsibility* to do so. The problem is, only a tiny fraction of the community takes the time to understand the real implications of the issue (on both sides), and fewer still actively participate in the conversation. A big part of realizing the potential is broad community involvement and participation. These conversations on Taxacom and other lists are a good start, but we're not even scratching the surface of the full community (which extends well beyond taxonomists to include *all* consumers of taxonomic nomenclature). Aloha, Rich Richard L. Pyle, PhD Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html