Floristics and monography - an uncertain future?

Authors
Citation
V. Heywood, Floristics and monography - an uncertain future?, TAXON, 50(2), 2001, pp. 361-380
Citations number
73
Categorie Soggetti
Plant Sciences
Journal title
TAXON
ISSN journal
00400262 → ACNP
Volume
50
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
361 - 380
Database
ISI
SICI code
0040-0262(200105)50:2<361:FAM-AU>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
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.