How do taxonomic proposals succeed?

[nsp88]

No time to read right now, but in general how often do proposals like this succeed? I have noticed lots of cacti have multiple names from changes.

Who votes/approves these changes?

How long do they take to make changes?

[Gee.S]

Split off as a separate topic.

[nsp88]

Oops, my bad

[gave_agave]

It depends a bit on how well the study which proposes the split has been done. If it's done well, other scientists will start using the new names as well. If it isn't done well, scientists often won't use it, or, we write another paper refuting it and/or arguing a different nomenclature.
There is also something like taxonomic vandalism. There is a very well known example of that in herpetology, where a guy from Australia, Raymond Hoser, has been naming lots and lots of species, based on very little evidence, and often naming himself and family members. He has his own journal in which he publishes a lot, and claims that if you're the first one to describe or split a species, and later others arrive at the same conclusion, than the first name is the valid one, even if his original publications were non-peer-reviewed. His website is smuggled.com, but if you search for him you come across criticism of him quite easily.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/te ... and-hoser/
http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu2/littserp.pdf

[mickthecactus]

Rather like Stapeliads that Bruyns renamed them all as Ceropegia. Nobody accepted it and it didn’t run.

[nsp88]

It depends a bit on how well the study which proposes the split has been done. If it's done well, other scientists will start using the new names as well. If it isn't done well, scientists often won't use it, or, we write another paper refuting it and/or arguing a different nomenclature.
There is also something like taxonomic vandalism. There is a very well known example of that in herpetology, where a guy from Australia, Raymond Hoser, has been naming lots and lots of species, based on very little evidence, and often naming himself and family members. He has his own journal in which he publishes a lot, and claims that if you're the first one to describe or split a species, and later others arrive at the same conclusion, than the first name is the valid one, even if his original publications were non-peer-reviewed. His website is smuggled.com, but if you search for him you come across criticism of him quite easily.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/te ... and-hoser/
http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu2/littserp.pdf

Thanks so much for the answer and for the links. That's an excellent article. Good background info and details on how it all works, along with the drama. I had no clue it all worked that way. Thanks!

[Aashvi78]

Successful taxonomic suggestions are the result of thorough scientific examination and consensus-building among subject-matter specialists. In addition to following established name rules and addressing any possible disputes, proposals must include strong supporting documentation.
Successful proposals contribute to our understanding of biodiversity and facilitate effective communication in biological sciences.GB Whatsapp