At 12:55 PM 1/6/2016, you wrote: >Scientists, much like the rest of the world require names so that >they can effectively communicate with each >other, and to the rest of the world. There is one behavioral barrier that most people must overcome when one's favorite outdated taxonomic names or anatomical terms are challenged or replaced by science, i.e. the need to effectively communicate with each other. One must continually strive to avoid being a victim of the economic theory of sunk cost fallacy: meaning that you are much more likely to continue support for a bad decision or obsolete idea if you have previously invested emotion, time, money, or effort (sunk cost) in it. In fact, this concept applies to many aspects of life. An example here would be continued support for an outdated name of a plant or plant part even though the botanically accepted name is something new. In this case, such support would be measured by continued use of the dated name or term. The people most susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy in this example frequently seem to be those who have written a lot using the outdated names or terms in question since they have the most invested emotionally in the outdated names and will therefore often be the most vocal defenders of the antiquated language in question. Previous emotional investment in bad or obsolete ideas invariably clouds our present capacity for objective and critical thinking, limiting our ability to move forward and communicate effectively. Not that it really matters for a hobbyist group, but the correct grammar of nomenclature is to completely avoid creating plurals of genera and families altogether and use a phrase like "many species of Scilla," or "many Scilla species," or "many scilla are" instead of creating a new word like "scillas." This avoids creating a communication problem for someone who has no familiarity with a particular genus. Someone new to horticulture or botany might incorrectly think there is a genus named "Scillas." Nathan