UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Concept versus data in delimitation of plant genera


Humphreys, A M; Linder, H P (2009). Concept versus data in delimitation of plant genera. Taxon, 58(4):1054-1074.

Abstract

As a consequence of there being several ways in which observed patterns of variation in nature can be conveyed in a generic classification, long recognised genera have changed in size over time. The generic rank has its origins in folk taxonomy, where genera were homogenous units of relatively few kinds. In the era of Bentham there was a widespread preference for large genera, many of which were split during the 20th century. In a survey of contemporary (1998-2007) generic delimitation practice we found a significant dichotomy between studies that incorporate molecular data and those that rely exclusively on morphological data. The former lead to delimitation of larger genera whereas the latter in general do not. This finding spurred a broader investigation into what drives changes in overall generic sizes, new data sources or new concepts? Two new data types have been introduced during the course of history: detailed morphology (anatomy, cytology) and chemical data (amino acid and DNA sequence data). Conceptual development has seen several turns: from language and communication, through memory and stability, to evolution and monophyly. We argue that conceptual change has a greater impact than changes in data do, since new data must be interpreted and translated into a classification and since conceptual changes may spur a search for new kinds of data. We conclude that the current trend toward recognising larger genera is a result of a return to study on a broad scale, rather than of incorporation of molecular data.

As a consequence of there being several ways in which observed patterns of variation in nature can be conveyed in a generic classification, long recognised genera have changed in size over time. The generic rank has its origins in folk taxonomy, where genera were homogenous units of relatively few kinds. In the era of Bentham there was a widespread preference for large genera, many of which were split during the 20th century. In a survey of contemporary (1998-2007) generic delimitation practice we found a significant dichotomy between studies that incorporate molecular data and those that rely exclusively on morphological data. The former lead to delimitation of larger genera whereas the latter in general do not. This finding spurred a broader investigation into what drives changes in overall generic sizes, new data sources or new concepts? Two new data types have been introduced during the course of history: detailed morphology (anatomy, cytology) and chemical data (amino acid and DNA sequence data). Conceptual development has seen several turns: from language and communication, through memory and stability, to evolution and monophyly. We argue that conceptual change has a greater impact than changes in data do, since new data must be interpreted and translated into a classification and since conceptual changes may spur a search for new kinds of data. We conclude that the current trend toward recognising larger genera is a result of a return to study on a broad scale, rather than of incorporation of molecular data.

Citations

35 citations in Web of Science®
32 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 17 Jan 2010
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Systematic Botany and Botanical Gardens
Dewey Decimal Classification:580 Plants (Botany)
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:17 Jan 2010 18:40
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:37
Publisher:International Association for Plant Taxonomy
ISSN:0040-0262
Official URL:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2009/00000058/00000004/art00002
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-25515

Download

[img]
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations