I think, we're looking at different results. You want to clarify things eg. relationships between plants, and I just want to ensure that the species name remain stable. If it means lumping them back into Masdevallia, then so be it. Maybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke: basionym = basic synonym.... Yes? so, if Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes? If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No? Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species. ok, street names = specific epithet, and we haven't quite done away with it. So, let's say all street names from now on will be numbers and every new street will have the a new number. Braem street is now 7. And it is in the USA. so, if I say USA 7, people will know that I am talking of (or what once was) Braem Street, USA. In the future, it will be simply known as USA 7. Of course, the census may want to have different levels which designate, suburb, city, state. Changing population means that a suburb is burgeoning and needs to be split. Currently, the suburb of Braem where USA 7 (aka Braem St is) is getting too big and needs to be split. So, they split the suburb into Guido and Braem and now USA 7 is in Guido. At the end of the day, it is still known as USA 7. and here I concede, because if it would be as easy to change the system as I have suggested, then it would be just as easy for someone else to change it tomorrow. But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out. You misunderstood the my point. The point was that as more research is done (however this is done, whether subatomic technology or whatever) the relationships of plants will be better understood. This relationship may lead to a plant being moved from one genus to another, but it’s name should remain the same. this is a terrible analogy, if I may say so myself, so I’ll respond with an equally terrible one… If I buy a Foster’s Lager today, and tomorrow I go to pub # 2 at USA 7, I can still ask for a Foster’s Lager. The beer hasn’t changed it’s name.