Welcome to the fascinating world of cp nomenclature!
>1) Any name used before a plant is officially described is
>simply invalid. Full stop.
This is (w/ other words) what I intended to write.
>2) There is no such thing as a *validating protologue*
Strange, I have read many of them (and published a few myself) already, but
you seem to prefer "official description". Anyway, we are talking about the
same thing.
>3) Plants must be described according to the International
>Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
Yes, and several (most?) rules therein define in great detail what is a
validating protologue. 8-)
>4) These *rules* are neither simple, straightforward nor
>transparent. They are very ambiguou and extremely compli-
>cated.
Well, it depends. At least for some they are not "very ambiguous and
extremely complicated".
>5) In addition to that are most of these *rules* not anything
>but suggestions that can be taken serious or not.
There is always a strict separation in the code between rules and
recommendations, and you are not entirely free to choose if you want to
obey or not.
>On top of that, certain decisions have been taken at the last
>congress that make some of these rules rather absurd.
Not absurd but rather obsolete. Remember these decisions have been taken
after (much discussion and) a vote, so a majority seems to find the rules
and their present modification are not too absurd.
>As a professional plant taxonomist, I would advise anyone who
>wants to get into the *game* of describing new taxa to be
>very careful and at least at the beginning, seek the advise og
>I mean of- an experienced taxonomist. There are enough
>synonyms about, the majority originating from people who
>did not take taxonomy serious enough.
To publish "Drosera exotica" HORT. ex BRAEM nomen nudum was not very
professional/careful/experienced/serious, was it? ;-)
Kind regards
Jan