Before a microorganism can be regulated, investigated, modified, sold or otherwise distributed, the holders of the organism must describe the organism in sufficient detail to enable evaluation. The more detailed the available information, the better the reasoning involved in possibly assigning it to a species. Thus, the data describing these entities require capture, management, analysis, and communication.
    The practice of taxonomy, i.e., giving groups of similar organisms names, for most living organisms, relies on, and allows, competing treatments of the relationships among organisms. That is, the distances among the individuals and groups are estimated and reported as the considered opinion of the reporter. The possibility of competing views is inherent in the fact that, now matter how estimated, the reported views are from different perspectives of a multidimensional construct.
    Taxonomists name organisms. Taxonomists write conflicting (and valid) treatments and the rationale for each treatment, pleasing taxonomists. The user wants an unequivocal name for the organism in question. The tension between these goals is irreconcilable because of an inherent “Heisenberg uncertainty” in taxonomy and identification. Thus:
=> The only “correct” identification possible is that of the type strain itself.
=> The type strain has an uncertain position within a species.
=> The boundaries of any species are uncertain.
=> The closer we get to species, the less certain the result.
=> However, there can be a consensus which lends credence to the identification