Many taxonomic complexes still remain biological enigma.in some cases electron microscopy has been helpful to some extent,while chemotaxonmy proved to be of little help.At this juncture came the molecular taxonomy which ignited much hope in classical taxonomists but due to extremely high cost of equipments involved in it,it is out of reach to a large group of classical taxonomists.Further, it seems that no significant contribution could be achieved so far,with the use of this technique.
It is true that molecular taxomonic work is still out of reach many taxonomists but in my opinion it would be incorrect to say that no significant contribution could be achieved with the use of this technique so far. There has been many a taxonomic rearrangements proposed as outcome of molecular studies and one of them is on legumes (see TAXON 66 (1) • February 2017: 44–77). However, it is of individual choice whether to follow these classifications or not, but so far as I know majority of the plant taxonomists are presently following these classifications.
I think only experts of particular taxonomic groups can say how effective it is in solving taxonomic complexities in phanerogams.
We recently published a new legume genus named after Dr. M Sanjappa, as Sanjappa E R Souza et M V Krishnaraj under Mimosoideae of broader Leguminosae. In new classification, it is placed under Caesalpinioideae -Mimosoid core clade.Even though it is easily recognizable under Mimosoideae, broader level phylogeny predicts and supports otherwise. Thanks for the active discussion.
Dr Promila
Ur para 2 appears to be a good suggestion (in my opinion).
My query is what Dr Krishnaraj is telling .
It is Chenopodium album L. NOT linn.
I agree with u in that specific problems may be attempted with the supplementary data.
May be that we have not yet reached the stage of accurate interpretation of the data obtained from these new technology.
However, we must have best hope.
Regards
Chenopodium album L. or Chenopodium album Linn. is all the same. Now a days taxonomists either write Linnaeus (that is the name in full) or the standardized abbreviation ( that is L.) following Authors of Plant Names by Brummitt & Powell (1992). It is not all a major issue here. However, we can always learn something through our discussions. Earlier some taxonomists also used Linn.
Dr Promila
In my opinion,at least Scientists/researchers should follow abbreviations.
Discussion should be healthy and purely scientific approach.
Regards
Yes I too agree with it. It is better to follow standardized abbreviations or write in full according to the format desired by some periodicals (for example Ptytotaxa). Flora of China also gives the full title of the authors of plant names.
Abbreviations are created with a scientific purpose and also to save the space(page).I feel that standard abbreviations should be used (as far as possible) in scientific publications and full names in popular scientific articles
Regards
Yes, abbreviations have been made for unambiguous identification of the authors with similar titles/names. They are space saving as well. ICN also follows standardized abbreviations of plant names.
- Badges
- Science method