While sharing of pre-prints is commonly done, nothing official is ever done based on non-reviewed studies. If they are later published, then the pre-prints are

While sharing of pre-prints is commonly done, nothing official is ever done based on non-reviewed studies. If they are later published, then the pre-prints are treated equivalently, because they have the same data. However, pre-prints that do not make it through peer review, or conclusions that exist within a pre-print but are removed in the final version, are treated as non-existent. It seems reasonable to treat taxonomy with the same rigor. If you can't convince your peers that you found something new, why should you get the distinction of making the name for it?