TRENDS IN SYSTEMATIC BOTANY
53
Second, the birth of the new science of genetics at the turn of the
century, followed by the rapid rise to prominence of chromosome cytology, inevitably brought with it a host of new ideas clothed in a new
and rapidly evolving terminology that were quite beyond the ken of
those who did not take the time to follow these developments rather
closely. Furthermore, genetic experiments required gardens, greenhouses, and months or years of time; cytological investigations called for
a special laboratory, much paraphernalia for paraffin imbedding, a research microscope, and again much time. It seemed much easier to leave
to the practitioners of these arts the fruits to be harvested from these
fields.
Third, the taxonomists who were active when the new applications
began to prove their value in the field were not trained in the related
disciplines. They had been brought up on a sound botanical background
that emphasized morphology, anatomy, floristics, nomenclature, a cursory
dash of physiology and the experimental sciences, probably field work,
phytogeography, and some excursions into zoology and geology, but certainly a grounding in Latin and perhaps also in Greek.
It is fortunate that times have changed. The students of the taxonomy
professors have gradually broadened their sights and have become conversant with as many of the contributing fields as possible. And it has
become increasingly apparent that contributions to systematics may
come from almost any of the biological fields. Fortunately, too, the more
cumbersome cytological techniques have become simplified, and this
has greatly accelerated the appearance of contributions in the field of
cytotaxonomy. It is reaching the point where the young taxonomist is
often receiving the broadest training of any student in our botany departments.
Some stumbling blocks remain. The desire to obtain a working grasp
of ten or twelve or even more fields of his science has made it difficult
for the young taxonomist to avoid accepting a superficial exposure to
some of them. He is apt to have lost the opportunity of obtaining a background in Latin (which is rapidly disappearing from our secondary
schools), and this deficiency will trouble him. The wealth of knowledge
has become so great that one man finds it difficult to organize it all for his
own use. He is faced with the new problem of remaining sufficiently
versatile to make his best contribution (Constance, 1951). This problem
has been successfully met in a few cases by the organization of research
teams, each worker contributing his percentage to the final results from
his own field of competence. This is a method that promises to yield
some of the most definitive taxonomic treatments of important groups of
53
Second, the birth of the new science of genetics at the turn of the
century, followed by the rapid rise to prominence of chromosome cytology, inevitably brought with it a host of new ideas clothed in a new
and rapidly evolving terminology that were quite beyond the ken of
those who did not take the time to follow these developments rather
closely. Furthermore, genetic experiments required gardens, greenhouses, and months or years of time; cytological investigations called for
a special laboratory, much paraphernalia for paraffin imbedding, a research microscope, and again much time. It seemed much easier to leave
to the practitioners of these arts the fruits to be harvested from these
fields.
Third, the taxonomists who were active when the new applications
began to prove their value in the field were not trained in the related
disciplines. They had been brought up on a sound botanical background
that emphasized morphology, anatomy, floristics, nomenclature, a cursory
dash of physiology and the experimental sciences, probably field work,
phytogeography, and some excursions into zoology and geology, but certainly a grounding in Latin and perhaps also in Greek.
It is fortunate that times have changed. The students of the taxonomy
professors have gradually broadened their sights and have become conversant with as many of the contributing fields as possible. And it has
become increasingly apparent that contributions to systematics may
come from almost any of the biological fields. Fortunately, too, the more
cumbersome cytological techniques have become simplified, and this
has greatly accelerated the appearance of contributions in the field of
cytotaxonomy. It is reaching the point where the young taxonomist is
often receiving the broadest training of any student in our botany departments.
Some stumbling blocks remain. The desire to obtain a working grasp
of ten or twelve or even more fields of his science has made it difficult
for the young taxonomist to avoid accepting a superficial exposure to
some of them. He is apt to have lost the opportunity of obtaining a background in Latin (which is rapidly disappearing from our secondary
schools), and this deficiency will trouble him. The wealth of knowledge
has become so great that one man finds it difficult to organize it all for his
own use. He is faced with the new problem of remaining sufficiently
versatile to make his best contribution (Constance, 1951). This problem
has been successfully met in a few cases by the organization of research
teams, each worker contributing his percentage to the final results from
his own field of competence. This is a method that promises to yield
some of the most definitive taxonomic treatments of important groups of