We have given a full response to this comment in http://iphylo.blogspot.co...

The main points are:

1. names are never deleted in IPNI but they are suppressed from public view until effectively published

2. we have made a change in IPNI to support LSID resolution as outlined in the paper

http address given in comment not working

Simon Rycroft from Zoology at the NHM observes "Looks like the record was being hidden until publication day

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/...

And the IPNI LSID resolution works if you add www (although not with the ones from the article - they're hidden)."

This highlights the fact that IPNI is not a registration system - names are entered as they arrive, not as they are published, hence the disconnect in this case!

In spite of the operational glitches (which in part at least seem to have been resolved), a minor wardrobe malfunction if you like, I think this article has been a significant step in the right direction for taxonomic botany.

Certainly the subsequent challenge, validation and discussion is going to focus people's minds and attention in the lead up to nomenclatural sessions of the IBC in 2011. This is the business of science collaboration and scholarship.

We can not avoid the inevitable electronic publication of plant names, perhaps even with an associated registration mechanism. The challenge is going to lie in introducing the new way(s) of doing business in a seamless, non destructive and non threatening way so as not alienate a community which has been doing business essentially the same way for over a quarter of a millenium.

Publications such as this are essential to test the waters an to uncover all the 'gotchas'. And it certainly found a few... :)