Dear Mary Sue: I agree with you 100%. Lets keep the names we know, not the new names, would it be possible to have a page with the syn's listed? I am much concerned with the changing of names based on DNA. Were geographic variations also examined for their DNA? how many plants were used to fix the DNA, if only one or two, is this a true representation of the genus or species in question? What law is there that says such changes have to be accepted? Who checks on their work? As science progresses (?) other means of examining the genus and species will no doubt occur. Are we in for a plethora of changes over the years? possibly, and if this is so we will never keep up with the changes and chaos will result. What do we do if others examine the DNA of a plant and find and form a different opinion, as might happen with the examination of the same species, but from a different geographical area, with different soil components, climate etc. In my opinion, many botanists live in a world of their own, much involved with the anatomy of plants and not the morphology, which in my mind is a completely different field, and MUST be preserved. Who checks on the botanists when they change plant's names, based on their DNA studies? I often wonder about this, and is there a panel or system of checks they have to conduct to assure the correctness of their changes? I think not, and they seem to act as if they were correct in every case, and this might not be so. The morphology does not change, and surely it is better to base identification on unchanging characteristics that can be seen, rather on changes that might, or might not be correct, and certainly can not be readily seen. Those who change the names seem to assume, and take the attitude they are the judge and jury, and their work not challenged, and those who challenge their work are regarded as morons. I wanted to post this to all, but this message may raise some hackles. If you feel it has merit, I have no problem at all with your forwarding it to all members. And I hope you do! Cheers, John E. Bryan