JANOVEC, JOHN P.1*, LYNN G. CLARK2, and SCOTT A. MORI1. 1Institute of Systematic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458-5126; 2Iowa State University, Department of Botany, 353 Bessey Hall, Ames IA, 50011-1020. - Monographs, Floras, Classification, and the Consumer.
Nomenclatural systems are structured around classification and
together they enable increasingly informed communication about
biological diversity. A polemic is raging and a morass of literature
is growing on the relevance of traditional approaches to
classification and current nomenclatural codes, often referred to in
general terms as the Linnaean system. Challengers of traditional
approaches to classification and nomenclature have proposed the
PhyloCode, a new set of rules which would govern the way systematists
classify and name the diversity of life. Monographs and floras are two
fundamental vehicles for communicating information about plant
diversity. These works provide a comprehensive foundation of botanical
research upon which other scientific studies are based. The
information conveyed through monographs and floras is utilized
directly or indirectly by a wide range of consumers both within and
outside the scientific arena, such as educators, agrarians,
ecologists, conservationists, amateur naturalists, and even lawmakers,
to name a few. Both classification and nomenclature are essential to
the process of synthesis that leads to monographic and floristic
treatments. Thus, abrupt conversion to a new system of classification
and nomenclature would have far-reaching consequences on the flow of
information and communication from systematics, to other scientific
disciplines, and to society. The purpose of this paper is to contrast
the current botanical code (ICBN) and the proposed PhyloCode from the
perspective of monographic and floristic research focused on
Neotropical plant diversity. We weigh advantages and disadvantages of
each system against a backdrop of on-going activity and communication,
and draw conclusions as to which system better facilitates current
needs. We suggest a pluralistic approach rooted in the stewardship of
systematics, and relate this philosophical viewpoint to education,
research, information synthesis, communication, the consumer, and
conservation of biological diversity.
Key words: classification, floras, Linnaean system, Monographs, Neotropical plant diversity, nomenclature, PhyloCode