"Local" and "Analytical" taxonomy
Jul 29, 2009 23:00:19 GMT -10
Post by leilani on Jul 29, 2009 23:00:19 GMT -10
In another thread leeb wrote .....
The primary subject of this thread is “Will this new information bring clarity to Nepenthes taxonomy?”
I’ll start this off with a few thoughts .....
Traditionally Nepenthes classification has been based almost completely on morphological features. This classification was the answer to the very basic and practical need to impose organization upon our garden (world). Based on discernible morphological features a naturalist or nurseryman could recognize and differentiate one group of plants from another. With a particularly tricky distinction an eye-piece might be required but most often differentiation was made with the naked eye.
Now, of course, Nepenthes taxonomy has become more sophisticated than the simple field observations and eye-piece of the past but, fundamentally, it remains a very practical cataloging of differentiable visible features. For the purposes of this thread lets call this “Local Taxonomy”.
With the growing acceptance of Darwinian thinking, taxonomy began to bear a new burden. No longer just a reasonable and practical catalog of differentiating characteristics, taxonomy was now expected to also reflect the underlying and unifying relationships of an organism’s evolutionary history.
Soon, as leeb says, through genetic analysis we may open wide new doors to our better understanding of the evolution and familial histories of the various Nepenthes species. Our technologies have expanded our potentials for differentiation far beyond those available to the taxonomist of the last millennium and, if we so choose, we can differentiate species into a far larger than practicable number. Although “local” visually differentiable features are still recognized are the most practical of defining characteristics they are no longer necessarily the most fundamental. Let’s call this activity “Analytical Taxonomy”.
Secondary question might include ....
Can “Local” and “Analytical” taxonomy be reconciled into one system without sacrificing either the scientific integrity of the classification or its practical utility?
What if we find that the visual characteristics we have been using for classification (considered so fundamental for so long) do not reflect, in the manner we have assumed them to, the underlying genetic histories of those species. Will large portions of Nepenthes taxonomy need to be thrown in the trash?
In the not too distant future our ability to study organisms DNA is going to make the answer to questions like this answerable
The primary subject of this thread is “Will this new information bring clarity to Nepenthes taxonomy?”
I’ll start this off with a few thoughts .....
Traditionally Nepenthes classification has been based almost completely on morphological features. This classification was the answer to the very basic and practical need to impose organization upon our garden (world). Based on discernible morphological features a naturalist or nurseryman could recognize and differentiate one group of plants from another. With a particularly tricky distinction an eye-piece might be required but most often differentiation was made with the naked eye.
Now, of course, Nepenthes taxonomy has become more sophisticated than the simple field observations and eye-piece of the past but, fundamentally, it remains a very practical cataloging of differentiable visible features. For the purposes of this thread lets call this “Local Taxonomy”.
With the growing acceptance of Darwinian thinking, taxonomy began to bear a new burden. No longer just a reasonable and practical catalog of differentiating characteristics, taxonomy was now expected to also reflect the underlying and unifying relationships of an organism’s evolutionary history.
Soon, as leeb says, through genetic analysis we may open wide new doors to our better understanding of the evolution and familial histories of the various Nepenthes species. Our technologies have expanded our potentials for differentiation far beyond those available to the taxonomist of the last millennium and, if we so choose, we can differentiate species into a far larger than practicable number. Although “local” visually differentiable features are still recognized are the most practical of defining characteristics they are no longer necessarily the most fundamental. Let’s call this activity “Analytical Taxonomy”.
Secondary question might include ....
Can “Local” and “Analytical” taxonomy be reconciled into one system without sacrificing either the scientific integrity of the classification or its practical utility?
What if we find that the visual characteristics we have been using for classification (considered so fundamental for so long) do not reflect, in the manner we have assumed them to, the underlying genetic histories of those species. Will large portions of Nepenthes taxonomy need to be thrown in the trash?
