Thanks for your reply. To refer to to RBINS…
ISNB was used in this publication: Arnett, R.H., G.A. Samuelson & G.M. Nishida. 1993. The Insect & Spider Collections of the World, 2nd ed.
ISNM is listed as “other abbrev.” here, but I do not know the original source.
http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/collections.asp?Mus=IRSNB
KNMB was used in this publication: Wilson, D.E., & D.M. Reeder. 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd Ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
MRHN was used in this publication: Torres-Carvajal, O., P.J. Venegas & K. de Queiroz. 2015. Three new species of woodlizards (Hoplocercinae, Enyalioides) from northwestern South America. ZooKeys 494: 107–132.
RIB was used in this publication: Cogger, H.G., E.E. Cameron & H.M. Cogger. 1983. Zoological Catalogue of Australia, Vol. 1. Amphibia and Reptilia. Australia Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
All is to say that the published literature has assigned (often in error) a number of codes to RBINS.
In 2018, I corresponded Wim Wouters who pointed out that RBINS is the most preferred abbreviation in English literature and KBIN is mostly used in Dutch publications while RBINS is used in the French ones. He also pointed out that such complexity is inherent to multilingual countries.
Sorry to hear about the “rebranding”. Such initiatives only add to the complexity from a collections standpoint. cheers, Mark