52
DAVID D. KECK
relationships. Systematic botany, on the other hand, he would apply
more restrictedly to the accumulation of facts along a systematic pattern,
or to a method of arriving at comparable facts. Its conclusions are
"wholly objective and fully documented in contrast to those aspects here
considered under the Taxonomic System, which are almost wholly subjective and involve interpretation in terms of concepts of taxonomic
categories and of phylogenetic series of morphological characters." Under
this definition, systematic botany may be considered one of the invaluable tools of taxonomy. Biosystematics (experimental taxonomy,
phylogenetic taxonomy), which utilizes in particular comparative cytology and comparative genetics and organizes the facts it obtains in an
orderly way, is a very important aspect of systematic botany and, as
such, is a significant tool of taxonomy, also.
The correct naming of plants is the particular charge of the taxonomist,
and there devolves upon him a responsibility to make this cornerstone
of the science as sound, dependable, and utilitarian as possible. This
requires exhaustive field knowledge, painstaking comparative morphological studies, thorough acquaintance with a vast literature, and a
capacity to relate and evaluate data. Until half a century or so ago
the taxonomist tended to lean almost exclusively upon comparative
morphological facts. His problem ever since has been to keep pace with
the rapid strides made in other fields of botany which have made available to him vast new sources of data of fundamental usefulness to his
work. Contributory information is often available from such sources as
ecology, anatomy, genetics, cytology, paleobotany, phytogeography, embryology, evolution, developmental morphology, and so on. If the taxonomist has been slow to utilize them all, this is understandable from
three sets of circumstances.
First, when the new lines of data began to pour in from other fields,
the taxonomists had not begun to complete their major task of assembling
an adequate sampling of the floras of the globe, of arranging into
categories the myriads of forms found in confusing array before them,
and of sorting out the new ones for description and placement in the
rapidly growing system of classification. There was some reluctance to
turn attention from a partially completed task to new and untried lines
of endeavor. The idea was appealing that the business in hand came
first, in fact, that the urgency of describing and classifying the hordes of
species, which an accelerated pace of geographic exploration in all parts
of the world was bringing to light, was considerably more important
than taking time out to weigh the relative merits of possible refinements
in the task.
DAVID D. KECK
relationships. Systematic botany, on the other hand, he would apply
more restrictedly to the accumulation of facts along a systematic pattern,
or to a method of arriving at comparable facts. Its conclusions are
"wholly objective and fully documented in contrast to those aspects here
considered under the Taxonomic System, which are almost wholly subjective and involve interpretation in terms of concepts of taxonomic
categories and of phylogenetic series of morphological characters." Under
this definition, systematic botany may be considered one of the invaluable tools of taxonomy. Biosystematics (experimental taxonomy,
phylogenetic taxonomy), which utilizes in particular comparative cytology and comparative genetics and organizes the facts it obtains in an
orderly way, is a very important aspect of systematic botany and, as
such, is a significant tool of taxonomy, also.
The correct naming of plants is the particular charge of the taxonomist,
and there devolves upon him a responsibility to make this cornerstone
of the science as sound, dependable, and utilitarian as possible. This
requires exhaustive field knowledge, painstaking comparative morphological studies, thorough acquaintance with a vast literature, and a
capacity to relate and evaluate data. Until half a century or so ago
the taxonomist tended to lean almost exclusively upon comparative
morphological facts. His problem ever since has been to keep pace with
the rapid strides made in other fields of botany which have made available to him vast new sources of data of fundamental usefulness to his
work. Contributory information is often available from such sources as
ecology, anatomy, genetics, cytology, paleobotany, phytogeography, embryology, evolution, developmental morphology, and so on. If the taxonomist has been slow to utilize them all, this is understandable from
three sets of circumstances.
First, when the new lines of data began to pour in from other fields,
the taxonomists had not begun to complete their major task of assembling
an adequate sampling of the floras of the globe, of arranging into
categories the myriads of forms found in confusing array before them,
and of sorting out the new ones for description and placement in the
rapidly growing system of classification. There was some reluctance to
turn attention from a partially completed task to new and untried lines
of endeavor. The idea was appealing that the business in hand came
first, in fact, that the urgency of describing and classifying the hordes of
species, which an accelerated pace of geographic exploration in all parts
of the world was bringing to light, was considerably more important
than taking time out to weigh the relative merits of possible refinements
in the task.