Dalton, What I said was "...if he believes you are correct he will make the changes right away" and that is the truth. It goes without saying, that if he does not agree or is not sure, it will take some time (if ever) to get the changes made. The best example of this is the revision of Laelia by Kew and all the subsequent attempts to overturn it. It is a mess, and I think Kew's revision will not stand, but until enough people raise the issue with them, it will not change. DNA is not an end all, be all, it is just another tool.
Of the 200+ changes to the database you have submitted, how many of them have been accepted and entered into the database? Luer's revisions were published in 'Icones Pleurothallidinarum' volume 26 in 2003, not in volume 28, which was just issued. However, I suspect you are correct that these changes will not be incorporated into the database, there being a little professional jealousy between the parties. However, I do think they should be incorporated. I do agree that Kew has a tendency to give more weight to the work of Kew people than other people and especially those that are not 'Professionals', in Kew's estimation. Hopefully, this will change in the future. The Kew Database is not perfect by any estimation ( and I think Kew would agree), however, it is the best tool we have to work with and if everyone is working to improve it, we will ultimately get a database that reflects the current consensus of the majority of orchid people (please note I did not say taxonomist). icones _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
