\n
\n
Thank you … I guess CoL is more reliable for ID.<\/p>\n
\n
I am still\u00a0very new both to ‘The Plant List’ and\u00a0‘Catalogue of Life’.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\nWhether or not CoL has higher standing in the world of taxonomy, I cannot say at present but even if it <\/span>does, then one would only go here for, in theory more reliable NOMENCLATURE and TAXONOMIC treatment.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThe\u00a0important question is RELIABILITY\u00a0of IDENTIFICATION\u00a0– all CoL provides is a NAME.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\nWhereas\u00a0‘The Plant List’ allows me to look at images of each species (where they exist and bearing in mind <\/span>many are misidentified, though I can usually judge their reliability) and herbarium specimens at Kew (when they exist <\/span>and bearing in mind Kew often has plants named using an old synonym not necessarily the currently accepted name <\/span>in ‘The Plant List’ or CoL.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\nA plant is still CORRECTLY identified even if one uses an older synonym.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/div>\nIdentification is one thing, nomenclature and taxonomic treatments are separate.<\/span>