Trees, Shrubs and Conifers: Plant Names, 0 by Stake

Stake wrote:
G'Day Nomosno. Your links illustrate beautifully the reason for my gripes. How anyone can claim that the mess illustrated is to clarify issues in the plant world has me baffled. My original posting was about cacti naming and that is likely one of the worst Families because of the large number represented but it is by no means the only Family that has the problem of confusion. With the widely grown plants, where the important thing to the gardener is the CV or variety. Like say Potato this name plus cultivar is all that is needed by most people and as far as I know is consistent in the English speaking world. The few that need the botanical name can easily find it in common references.
So the my question is "Why can't we have the same for all plants?"
Some plants are already known by their generic name i.e. Dahlia in these cases this would be retained and if in the future someone decides they are not Dahlia the botanical name might change but the Gardeners' name wouldn't, that plant type will be Dahlia for as long as Plant Lovers want it to be.
My thought on who would pay for this is that volunteers over a very long time would do the work at no cost or if the support was great enough then funds sought from plant organisations and if the support was overwhelming then perhaps we could have a Dept of Plant Names funded by Governments. After all I'm sure we all have ideas on less useful bodies that receive funding.
Photo is my Parodia ottonis that thinks it is a Notocactus ottonis
Regards Brian