Abstract
The current revolution in molecular phylogenetics has led to a large number of revisionary changes in the classification of life in a relatively short period of time. To the non-taxonomist, and to some taxonomists, this might give the illusion of excessive and unnecessary naming of taxa. Vences et al. (2013) have made that interpretation, leading them to propose a lengthy and detailed set of criteria—some might call it a mini-ICZN Code—designed to scale back the naming process in taxonomy, hence their title "...economy of change..." Although claimed not to be proposed regulation, it is hard to ignore phrases like "...classifications should avoid deliberately violating any of the three primary [criteria]..." These authors have made some good points, but taxonomists should reject this proposal outright because it is flawed and based on a misunderstanding. If one defines instability as change, any revision will cause temporary instability, by definition. In popular groups of organisms, there may be initial resistance, referred to here as 'revision shock,' but people will eventually get used to new names, lists will get updated, and there will be a new status quo in a few years as the dust settles. This is how it has been since Linnaeus, and it does not require new criteria or regulation.