Locality data
Randall P. Linke (Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:48:49 PDT)
Just to chime in, which I have been resisting, I think that those who rely
on one discipline, genetic, morphologic, whatever, miss the bigger picture.
Over specialization, reliance on convenient theories and/or definitions
that are of little practical value across disciplines and are also highly
subjective, only try to enforce an order on taxonomy that is, frankly
artificial and for our own convenience and can often mean very little to
the living organisms we attempt to force our concepts of order on. There
is much each approach offers, and just as likely much it wrongly negates.
Living systems are far more diverse, complex, and resistant to human
devised constraints than we would like to believe.
Randy
Monterey Bay Region, California
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Hannon <othonna@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim C,
I don't know any taxonomists who never have stepped into the field, and I
have known many dozens of botanists. How did you form this idea?
No one would suggest that an herbarium specimen tells the whole story. They
are essentially permanent records that can remain useful for several
hundred years. In the case of type specimens they form the referential
basis for naming plants.
Dried specimens are the only practical way to sort through variation, for
example, in a species or genus without doing months or years of field work.
Herbaria build upon generations of collectors: millions of specimens,
records of extirpated populations or species, enabling the replication of
previous studies, and on and on. There is no substitute for this, not even
DNA samples.
"There is always more to see and learn than what has already been
documented."
Of course. That is why botanists can still find jobs, if they are lucky.
Dylan Hannon
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
--
*
*
*
*