Like much of the rest of taxonomy, both floristics and monography, two of i
ts principal outputs are being subjected, albeit slowly, to the dramatic ch
anges in concepts and methodology that are affecting other parts of these f
ields. After a number of false starts, electronic web-based preparation and
publication of floristic and taxonomic projects in the form of continually
updated information systems and databases are beginning to replace convent
ional time- and information-limited floras and, to a lesser extent, monogra
phs. Coincidental with these developments, the value of floristics is being
questioned by some biologists on the grounds of its lack of scientific obj
ectivity and its weakening of systematics as a scientific endeavour, while
at the same time its fundamental importance, under the guise of completing
the inventory of biodiversity, is being emphasised by other biologists and
by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Taxonomic Initiati
ve. Other important developments that will affect the way in which floristi
cs and monography are pursued, is the questioning of the continuing relevan
ce of the Linnaean hierarchical structure of biological classification and
proposals to replace it with a phylogenetic structure, and proposals to ado
pt phylogenetic species concepts. Both of these however scientifically just
ified, would drastically affect the accessibility of the units of taxonomy
to a large number of non-specialist users. In contrast to this, we are begi
nning to see in taxonomy policy-making, an increasing sensitivity to societ
al and ethical concerns that characterise "post-normal science". This inclu
des the recognition of the need to command strong public identification suc
h as response to user needs and concerns, and an acceptance that floristic
and taxonomic work cannot be pursued as open-ended, long-term enterprises.
There is a time limit imposed by human activities in destroying the very re
source base of biodiversity that we are aiming to study.