I think this and all the other discussions have been good.
In introducing Bionomina a new Journal Mr. Dubois said:
“Science progresses both by continuous increase of factual knowledge and theories, and by “revolutions” that challenge once admitted facts and theories. Debates, confrontations and even polemics are essential for the development of science, and freezing discussions and criticisms through any “conservative” system (either promulgated by States, or unofficial but dominant ideas imposed, e.g., by providers of salaries and funds for research, by research directors or simply by editors and referees of journals) hampers scientific progress.”
“Science does not need “politically correct” thinking, it needs debates, contradictions and free expression of disagreement. The tradition of discussion and confrontation of divergent opinions on all scientific matters was very lively in the scientific periodicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which often published papers defending opposite points of view, including sometimes several successive replies from either side.”
As a member of the warrior-caste this makes complete sense. I remember reading of an encounter of Audubon and Richardson with Mr. Vigors that got pretty nasty. “Richardson tried to smuggle him into the Society's rooms; J.J. Audubon succeeded but they were discovered, and ignominiously removed themselves from the building.”
This journal just published a draft BioCode which has good bits for both sides of this. It contains a rule that would have allowed the field biologist to get priority by just posting it online with an official group. The good bit for pro-aves is that the code does not require a skin if a published illustration exists.
http://www.mapress.com/bionomina/content.htm .
For a good guide for naming new species which disagrees about no requirement for a series of skins:
http://www.taprobanica.lk/ .