This changes everything: dynamic floras and the disruption of traditional taxonomic practice
K. R. ThieleThe University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Perth, WA 6009, Australia. Email: kevin.thiele@uwa.edu.au
Australian Systematic Botany 29(3) 172-175 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB16016
Submitted: 11 April 2016 Accepted: 8 September 2016 Published: 29 November 2016
Abstract
Flora writing has traditionally been an important but sporadic part of the taxonomic process. The gap between the completion of Bentham’s Flora australiensis and the commencement of the Flora of Australia project, for example, was 103 years. Floras are generally written by small teams (occasionally by single authors) based in single or coordinated networks of institutions, and function as authoritative, point-in-time syntheses of taxonomic activity during the years preceding their creation. Of course, since taxonomy is a dynamic and (potentially) open-ended science, it is often the case that as soon as a Flora treatment is published, it is rendered superseded by ongoing taxonomy. The traditional taxonomic process can, thus, be modelled as a cyclic alternation of open, unconstrained, more-or-less unmediated taxonomic activity (hypothesis generation) punctuated by short phases of synthesis, constraint and mediation (hypothesis consolidation). The opportunity to move from paper Flora publication to digital management and delivery of eFloras may substantially change this model. Although traditional Floras are understood to be unitary, authoritative, synthetic, sporadic and static, eFloras are expected to be unitary, authoritative, synthetic, continuous and dynamic. There is potential tension between the first three expectations of an eFlora (that it be unitary, authoritative and synthetic) and the last two (that it be continuous and dynamic). Resolving this tension may necessitate a change in the way taxonomy is conducted, mediated and managed; the implications of such change will need to be carefully considered, and the change will need to be carefully managed, to make the most of the opportunities of eFloras, while retaining the values of an open, vigorous taxonomic science.
References
Allan HH (1961–2000) ‘Flora of New Zealand.’ (Government Printer: Wellington, New Zealand)Bentham G (1863–1878) ‘Flora australiensis: a Description of the Plants of the Australian Territory.’ (L. Reeve and Co.: London, UK)
Brach AR, Boufford DE (2011) Why are we still producing paper floras? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 98, 297–300.
| Why are we still producing paper floras?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bressen T (2012) Consensus decision-making: what, why, how. In ‘Practicing Law in the Sharing Economy: Helping People Build Cooperatives, Social Enterprise, and Local Sustainable Economies’. (Eds J Orsi, J Kassan) pp. 212–217. (American Bar Association: Chicago, IL, USA)
Crouch NR, Smith GF, Figueiredo E (2013) From checklists to an e-Flora for Southern Africa: past experiences and future prospects for meeting target 1 of the 2020 global strategy for plant conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 99, 153–160.
| From checklists to an e-Flora for Southern Africa: past experiences and future prospects for meeting target 1 of the 2020 global strategy for plant conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Foreman DB, Walsh NG, Entwisle TJ (Eds) (1993–1999) ‘Flora of Victoria.’ (Inkata Press: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
Frodin DG (2001) ‘Guide to Standard Floras of the World.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
George AS (1981) The background to the flora of Australia. In ‘Flora of Australia Vol. 1. Introduction’. pp. 3–24. (Bureau of Flora and Fauna: Canberra, ACT, Australia)
Harden GJ (Ed.) (1990–1993) ‘Flora of New South Wales.’ (New South Wales University Press: Sydney, NSW, Australia)
Hooker JD (1852–1855) ‘Flora novae-zelandiae.’ (L. Reeve and Co.: London, UK)
Hooker JD (1867) ‘Handbook of the New Zealand Flora.’ (L. Reeve and Co.: London, UK)
Hooker JD (1875–1897) ‘The Flora of British India.’ (L. Reeve and Co.: London, UK)
Jessop JP, Toelken HR (Eds) (1986) ‘Flora of South Australia.’ (South Australian Government Printer: Adelaide, SA, Australia)
Kuhn TS (2012) ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA)
McNeill J, Turland NJ (2011) Melbourne congress: major changes to the code. Taxon 60, 1495–1497.
McNeill J, Barrie FR, Buck WR, Demoulin V, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Knapp S, Marhold K, Prado J, Prud’homme van Reine WF, Smith GF, Wiersema JH, Turland NJ (2012) ‘International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Melbourne Code)’, adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress, July 2011, Melbourne, Australia. Regnum vegetabile, vol. 154. (Koeltz Scientific Books: Königstein, Germany)
Morin NR, Spellenberg RW (2008) Flora of North America – History. In ‘Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 1’. (Ed. NR Morin) pp. 3–12. (Oxford University Press: New York)
Pursh F (1814) ‘Flora americae septentrionalis.’ (White, Cochrance, and Co.: London, UK)
Rosenberg H, Feldman CS (2008) ‘No Time to Think: the Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle.’ (A&C Black: London, UK)
Stace CA (1980) ‘Plant Taxonomy and Biosystematics.’ (Edward Arnold: London, UK)
Thiele KR (2004) Orchid taxonomy in Australia needs to lift its game. Australian Systematic Botany Society Newsletter 158, 13–15.
Watson MF, Lyal CHC, Pendry CA (2015) ‘Descriptive Taxonomy.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Wilson AJG (2011) Pandanaceae. In ‘Flora of Australia. Vol. 39: Alismatales to Arales’. (Ed. AJG Wilson) pp. 211–235. (Australian Biological Resources Study: Canberra, ACT, Australia)
