|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
The study of organismic diversity has witnessed an unprecedented
upswing in the last two de- cades. The empirical basis of botanical
systematics has been broadened far beyond the realm of
macromorphological traits on which systematists have based their
decisions for more than 200 years. Electron microscopy and
phytochemistry have become standard tools, rendering evi- dence
from micromorphology and micro molecules accessible to systematic
research. The analy- sis of truly biological phenomena, like the
interaction between various groups of organisms, or the strategy of
reproduction, has been added to the already existing fields of
floral and dispersal biology. The study of macromolecules permits
genealogical reconstructions with the greatest pre- cision.
Considerable progress has also been made in the methodology for
reconstructing phylo- geny. All this is in consonance with the
strong intellectual stimulus that the study of phylogeny seems to
exert on taxonomists. It is small wonder then that a large
proportion of the taxono- mists' activities is absorbed by the
attempt to reconstruct phylogeny at all hierarchical levels. While
botanists from Linnaeus to Bentham & Hooker and Engler &
Prantl have synthesized the botanical knowledge of their time, such
a synthesis has not been attempted more recently in spite of, or
possibly rather because of, the rising flood and rapid
diversification of botanical knowledge.
The study of organismic diversity has witnessed an unprecedented
upswing in the last two de- cades. The empirical basis of botanical
systematics has been broadened far beyond the realm of
macromorphological traits on which systematists have based their
decisions for more than 200 years. Electron microscopy and
phytochemistry have become standard tools, rendering evi- dence
from micromorphology and micro molecules accessible to systematic
research. The analy- sis of truly biological phenomena, like the
interaction between various groups of organisms, or the strategy of
reproduction, has been added to the already existing fields of
floral and dispersal biology. The study of macromolecules permits
genealogical reconstructions with the greatest pre- cision.
Considerable progress has also been made in the methodology for
reconstructing phylo- geny. All this is in consonance with the
strong intellectual stimulus that the study of phylogeny seems to
exert on taxonomists. It is small wonder then that a large
proportion of the taxono- mists' activities is absorbed by the
attempt to reconstruct phylogeny at all hierarchical levels. While
botanists from Linnaeus to Bentham & Hooker and Engler &
Prantl have synthesized the botanical knowledge of their time, such
a synthesis has not been attempted more recently in spite of, or
possibly rather because of, the rising flood and rapid
diversification of botanical knowledge.
|
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.