54
DAVID D. KECK
plants. One reason is, that the more kinds of evidence that can be coordinated and brought to bear on problems of relationship, the more
objective is the resultant classification.
It is as important to recognize the limitations of these individual bits
of evidence as it is their indispensability. As pointed out by I. W. Bailey
(1949), a truly natural classification could only be attained through
"the analysis and the harmonization of evidence from all organs, tissues
and parts." This is because the morphological specializations of different structures are commonly not synchronized. The flower, for instance, may be changing rapidly at a time when the vascular system is
stable or vice versa.
Because of the complexity of the experimental approach to taxonomy,
calling for the patient assemblage of living research materials and their
manipulation by trained investigators, it is obvious that progress along
these lines will be slow in comparison with the total number of organisms to be treated. The taxonomist at present is still faced with the
task of completing the description and classification of the flora of the
world. Also, he still has far to go. Great areas in the tropics in particular
have vast numbers of new entities that still remain to be described. In
these areas the floras must be worked through by the classical methods
before any of the newer approaches can be applied to them with any
meaning. This basic floristic-type taxonomy is as essential to the ultimate
construction of a phylogenetic system of classification as the most elaborate experimental procedure which may attempt to trace the hereditary
background of every variation. Although the present level of our
knowledge is rising rapidly, it is perhaps fortunate that the greater
amount of attention is still being given to this inventory stage of
taxonomy. The inventory must be essentially completed before we can
draw up a reliable scheme of relationships even at the family level.
Systematic botany now presents a more irregular front of progress
than it did a quarter of a century ago. Exploration, particularly in the
tropics and the southern hemisphere, is going forward actively. As the
necessary descriptive work from these fronts is being completed, new
efforts are being made to incorporate the findings, in orderly form, in
large regional floras. In Europe and America, where the components of
the floras have been worked over rather intensively through the past
decades, a closer look is being given to them in the light of the newer
tools made available to the taxonomist from other fields of botany. Biosystematic studies of various degrees of thoroughness are emanating from
these continents. Here floras are being prepared also, some of which
ignore the newer trends, some accept parts of the newer helps, such as
DAVID D. KECK
plants. One reason is, that the more kinds of evidence that can be coordinated and brought to bear on problems of relationship, the more
objective is the resultant classification.
It is as important to recognize the limitations of these individual bits
of evidence as it is their indispensability. As pointed out by I. W. Bailey
(1949), a truly natural classification could only be attained through
"the analysis and the harmonization of evidence from all organs, tissues
and parts." This is because the morphological specializations of different structures are commonly not synchronized. The flower, for instance, may be changing rapidly at a time when the vascular system is
stable or vice versa.
Because of the complexity of the experimental approach to taxonomy,
calling for the patient assemblage of living research materials and their
manipulation by trained investigators, it is obvious that progress along
these lines will be slow in comparison with the total number of organisms to be treated. The taxonomist at present is still faced with the
task of completing the description and classification of the flora of the
world. Also, he still has far to go. Great areas in the tropics in particular
have vast numbers of new entities that still remain to be described. In
these areas the floras must be worked through by the classical methods
before any of the newer approaches can be applied to them with any
meaning. This basic floristic-type taxonomy is as essential to the ultimate
construction of a phylogenetic system of classification as the most elaborate experimental procedure which may attempt to trace the hereditary
background of every variation. Although the present level of our
knowledge is rising rapidly, it is perhaps fortunate that the greater
amount of attention is still being given to this inventory stage of
taxonomy. The inventory must be essentially completed before we can
draw up a reliable scheme of relationships even at the family level.
Systematic botany now presents a more irregular front of progress
than it did a quarter of a century ago. Exploration, particularly in the
tropics and the southern hemisphere, is going forward actively. As the
necessary descriptive work from these fronts is being completed, new
efforts are being made to incorporate the findings, in orderly form, in
large regional floras. In Europe and America, where the components of
the floras have been worked over rather intensively through the past
decades, a closer look is being given to them in the light of the newer
tools made available to the taxonomist from other fields of botany. Biosystematic studies of various degrees of thoroughness are emanating from
these continents. Here floras are being prepared also, some of which
ignore the newer trends, some accept parts of the newer helps, such as