These remarks by Jane are truly striking and seems to described the unfortunate situation we have in South America concerning monocot taxonomy > " If the descriptions are not published in peer-reviewed journals, they > are not likely to be generally accepted, although eventually someone > may see the description, go back to the specimens or the population > (provided specimens have been deposited in accessible herbaria), and > confirm the species with a new description." Without the minimum research. " On the other hand, we also know of people > who publish descriptions in personally printed or "captive" journals > and, as a result, suffer the contempt of academic botanists, whether > or not their observations are valid. At worst, publishing unreviewed > species descriptions results in a proliferation of names that denote > local populations of widespread species, or mere forms." Particularly because such observations are consistently invalid. At worst, is the worst possible scenario with scores of doubtful species and unfounded name changes.