Glitch!, I think you are being Realistic about the odds of even semi-formal adoption of a sensible idea. "Not Invented Here" is all too common in academia and corporate bureaucracies. Chronos, Thank you for your input. This is the sort of response I have been hoping for. If you notice any errors in my preliminary, unofficial, unauthorized (Quixotic?) categories, please feel free to correct me. Being outside the ‘business’, so to speak. I have no professional reputation to defend or any intent to seek funding. To avoid the political snarls and egotistical feuds all too common with professional organizations mandating established positions. The Zero designation is a temporary placeholder. Of samples taken that are not immediately confirmed as Earth Life. Once verified by multiple sources, then the sample designation can be changed to the correct classification. Retaining an archive of the preliminary taxonomy for historical review and possible revision if deemed necessary. (example) 0.01_2020.120_001/10 0.01_ Zero designating a Probable but Unidentified Organism found outside Earth’s Mesosphere. 2020 .120 designating year and day found _001/10 designating first of ten samples collected. (example) 0.02_2020.120_008/10 Designating a Possible but Unidentified Orgamism, the 8th of 10 samples taken outside Earth’s Mesosphere. With unique characteristics. Such as, an unrecognized metabolism NOT identifiable as Earth Life} The reason I have tentatively offered this numeric system is that it is language independent. If a general preference was for instance using Atomic Era for year. No big effort needed to update the records. While using the count of days avoids unnecessary complexity. The problem I foresee is how to designate separate missions with overlapping dates for collecting samples?