"One thing I have noticed is that the older taxonomist who only had morphology to work with have since been shown correct in numerous molecular studies (Bentham and Hooker, JK Small, Baker, and others)." This is true at the species level as well. The "species concept" may not be perfectly defensible on a molecular level but organisms are arranged in nature in ways that allow us to distinguish them by practical recognition, mainly morphology. If plants (~populations) are not to be categorized in species, genera and families, then how will we refer to them? Taxonomy and phylogeny should not be conflated, even as they are closely interrelated. The former seeks to provide a useful framework for classifying and naming plants that serves a wide public audience. It relies on many disciplines, not least of which is DNA work, to ensure that the results reflect natural relationships as far as is practical. Phylogenetic works, by contrast, are concerned only with putative pathways of evolution and more subjective problems of ranking and where to draw lines between genera, families and species are an afterthought, if they are regarded at all. On another level, a reductive, materialist view of life denies any meaningful natural order. It posits merely random associations of molecules and environmental factors over time and space. How can this be reconciled with more traditional views, i.e., an intelligible natural world? Dylan