Content uploaded by Bertil Nordenstam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bertil Nordenstam on Apr 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Bertil Nordenstam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bertil Nordenstam on Apr 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
2 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
OLOFSWARTZ-A250 YEAR ANNIVERSARY
Bertil Nordenstam
Abstract
Olof Swartz (1760-1818) was the first Professor Bergianus and also Permanent Secretary of The
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, from 1811 until his death in 1818. Swartz was a leading botanist
in the post-Linnaean era, an expert onflowering plants, ferns and mosses, and a pioneer in the florisitic
exploration of the Caribbean, especially Jamaica. SepOlO marks the 250th anniversary of his birth.
Key words : Olof Swaftz, 250 years anniversary.
Family background
Olof Peter Swartz was born on September 21,1760, in the town of Norrkoping south of
Stockholm in south-east central Sweden. His father was a rather wealthy manufacturer and his
mother was of noble birth. Parental ancestors had been iron miners and workers at a foundry in
the more northerly province of Varmland at a place called Svartsangen, from which the family
name was formed.
Studies and travels in Sweden
When Olof was seven years his father died, but the mother lived until 1817. Olof went to
school in Norrkoping with a private tutor, and at the age of 18 he was enrolled at the University of
Uppsala for studies in medicine and natural history. The celebrated Linnaeus had died earlier in the
same year, so Swartz became a student of the younger Linnaeus, but the foremost mentor was
Carl Peter Thunberg. The latter returned from his extensive travels to South Africa and Japan in
1779 and succeeded the younger Linnaeus on the chair of botany in 1784. Thunberg and Swartz
developed a lifelong close friendship and kept a lively correspondence.
Thunberg contributed substantially to the Supplementum plantarum, a work initiated by
Linnaeus as "Mantissa tertia" and completed by the younger Linnaeus (1781, but actually published
in 1782). Also Olof Swartz in spite oh youth made some contribution, demonstrating his early
interest in mosses, a group of plants largely neglected by earlier workers including Linnaeus father
and son. Swartz found a new species of liverwort near Uppsala and Linnaeus fil. in the
Supplementum described it as Jungermannia sertularoides with an acknowledgement to the
collector, viz., "Invenit 01. Swartz, Botanices Studiosus optime spei".
In summer vacancies Swartz also made longer excursions in Scandinavia. In 1780 he
travelled with some fellow students in Lapland along the classical route via Kvikkjokk to the
Norwegian border, a track trodden before him by Olof Rudbeck, Carl Linnaeus and Lars Montin
(in 1696,1732 and 1749, respectively). In spite of these earlier explorations by eminent botanists
Swartz found some novelties for Lapland such as the orchids Chamorchis alpina and Leucorchis
albida, and even a species new to science, viz. Minuartia stricta (described by Swartz in 1799 as
Spergula stricta). The company returned to Uppsala via Finland and the island of Aland in the
Baltic.
In the following year, i.e. 1781, Swartz visited Aland again and discovered Polygala
amarella as new to Scandinavia, as well as the new species Gentianapulchella Swartz (1783).
This minute littoral herb is currently known as Centaurium pulchellum (Sw.) Druce. He also
made an excursion to Gotland, the largest island in the Baltic, with interesting results.
The academic studies proceeded well and already in 1781 Swartz defended a dissertation
on the system of mosses, De Methodo Muscorum, under the presidium of Linnaeus fil. In 1783
he passed the medical candidate exam, and he now felt a desire to explore more exotic countries.
ISBN : 978-93-5067-867-1 Systematics of Flowering Plants 3
Travel to the West Indies
In May 1783 Swartz left Sweden for a long journey to the West Indies. He spent some
time on the Swedish west coast before embarking on a ship destined for Boston in North America.
There he stayed for more than one month and made new friends, but he was not overly impressed
with the standard of learning at the academy. From Boston he continued the voyage to Jamaica
and landed at Montego Bay on January 5, 1784.
The flora of the British colony Jamaica and other islands of the Antilles had been explored
by Sir Hans Sloane, Charles Plumier, Patrick Browne, and Baron Nicolaus Joseph Jacquin.
Nevertheless Swartz found hundreds of new species of plants, phanerogams as well as cryptogams,
during his extensive explorations all over the island, from the rugged 'Cockpit country' in the west
to the lofty Blue Mountains in the east. He also spent half a year on the island of Hispaniola and
made shorter excursions on Cuba and some smaller islands.
Following the Linnaean tradition Swartz also collected birds and insects, but these
collections were largely lost in hurricanes and animal attacks. Also some botanical collections
were lost, but the majority arrived safely to Sweden. In the autumn of 1786 he started the voyage
back.home. On the way he stayed in London for more than half a year. He enjoyed Sir Joseph
Banks' benevolence and friendship and worked on his collections, much aided by the rich Banksian
library and herbarium. Banks was impressed by the botanical knowledge of Swartz and wrote in a
letter to J. E. Smith (Aug. 1787): "Swartz is the best botanist I have seen since Solander". With
Banks mediation Swartz was offered a position as "Travelling Physician" in the British East India
Company, but he was now homesick and declined the offer.
West Indian botany
After four years abroad Swartz was back home in Sweden in the autumn of 1787. In
London he had finished his first attempt on a West Indian flora, and soon after his return to Sweden
the \prodromus Florae Indiae Occidentalis was published (1788). In this work 61 genera and
955 species were treated, many of them new to science.
Another major publication was titled Observationes botanicae (1791). This was organized
as a supplement to Murray's edition of Systema Vegetabilium (1784), with descriptions and
illustrations of mainly West Indian plants.
A more comprehensive Flora Indiae Occidentalis followed, but its publication was
much delayed due to political and economical unrest in Europe. It was finally printed in Erlangen,
Germany, in three volumes (1797,1800,1806). The work covered the West Indian plants described
after Linnaeus and Jacquin, altogether more than 1,000 species and many of them authored by
Swartz himself.
Swartz was a talented artist and made drawings and water-colours of many plants.
During his Caribbean sejour he made about 200 illustrations. His intention was to publish a series
called Icones Plantarum Incognitarum, but only two fascicles with 13 plates in all were published
(1794, 1800). It was difficult to find copperplates and engravers in Sweden, so Swartz sent 200
drawings to the publisher Schreber in Erlangen, but they remained unpublished and got lost after
Schreber's death. A volume containing 71 of Swartz' drawings was somehow acquired by the
German botanist Ignaz Urban (1848—1931), well known author on West Indian botany. This
volume was eventually bought by C.A.M. Lindman in Stockholm and they now belong to the
Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Swartz and the orchids
We have already observed that Swartz had a liking for orchids and he made significant
contributions to the taxonomy of this large family. Some of his fundamental orchid papers appeared
first in Swedish and were later made internationally available in Latin and in English, and several
4 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
papers were published in foreign journals. He analyzed methodically the complex orchid flower
structures, and many well-known genera are authored Sw., such as Cymbidium, Dendrobiwn,
Disperis, Oncidium and Stelis.
Swartz and cryptogams
In cryptogam systematics Swartz made pioneering contributions especially on ferns and
mosses. The German bryologist Hedwig had laid a foundation to a moss system which was readily
adopted and developed by Swartz. He corresponded with Hedwig and other bryologists such as
Weber and Mohr, who visited Sweden around the turn of the century. Swart published a manual of
Swedish mosses (in Swedish 1795, in Latin 1798). More than 200 moss species were treated, as
compared with 78 species in Linnaeus's Flora Suecica (2nd ed., 1754).
Swartz was also interested in lichens, which is perhaps not surprising. In Linnaean
taxonomy mosses and lichens were treated together and sometimes confused. Swartz initiated a
publication on Lichenes Americani, and he inspired and encouraged Erik Acharius to lichen studies.
They became close friends, and Acharius achieved international recognition as the Father of
Lichenology.
Also the Father of Mycology, i.e. Elias Fries, was led to the study of cryptogams, notably
fungi, by Swartz. The latter made the first systematic inventory of mushrooms in the vicinity of
Stockholm and recorded more than 300 species new to Sweden. Swartz also described quite a
number of new West Indian fungi.
Above all Swartz was an ardent pteridologist and he called the study of ferns "my chief
amusement". In line with the petnames of the aforementioned cryptogamists Swartz might be
called the Father of Pteridology. Numerous familiar genera were distinguished and authored by
Swartz, such as Botrychium, Cheilanthes, Lygodium and Psilotum.
Swedish flora
Swartz maintained his interest in higher plants throughout his life and did not neglect the
Swedish flora. He continued to find new and interesting plants even close to Stockholm and Uppsala,
such as two new species of Pyrola, viz. P. media Sw. and P. chlorantha Sw.
He also played a major role in the production of Svensk Botanik (i.e. Swedish Botany),
a Swedish counterpart to Sowerby's English Botany. He contributed texts and some illustrations
to the first volumes, and from 1806 up to his death he had the main responsibility as author and
artist.
Swartz also initiated a study on the difficult genus Rosa He wrote in a letter to W.J.
Hooker in 1817: "I have been hard at work on the indigenous Roses this summer, and I am
convinced of the multiplicity of that genus beyond the opinion hitherto entertained".
However, one year later Swartz had passed away and his Rosa studies remained
unfinished.
Zoology
Throughout his career Swartz was faithfully following the Linnaean tradition with a
broad scientific scope. Thus he did not neglect zoology, neither in the West Indies nor at home. He
published on hagfishes, medusae (jellyfish), and especially insects like his mentor and friend
Thunberg. He also initiated a series of illustrations named Svensk zoologi (i.e. Swedish zoology),
modeled after the botanical series mentioned above. His official speech as President of the Swedish
Academy of Sciences dealt with the utility of domestic animals.
ISBN : 978-93-5067-867-1 Systematics of Flowering Plants 5
Swartz and the Swedish Academy of Sciences
Swartz had no permanent position for some years after his return to Sweden and apparently
he lived on the inheritance from his father. He lived a frugal life and devoted himself wholeheartedly
to science. He was an active member of the Academy of Sciences, and he was appointed by the
King as Curator of the Royal natural history collections, certainly a position more prestigious than
lucrative.
In 1791 the grandiose will of P. J. Bergius (1730—1790) was effectuated, which meant
a generous donation to the Academy of valuable real estate, a magnificent library, a large herbarium,
and a position as Professor Bergianus and Head of the Bergius Foundation. In accordance with
Bergius' wish Swartz was appointed the first Professor Bergianus. The mission of the Hortus
Bergianus was strictly utilistic and included training of gardeners, growing economic plants and
raising new fruit varieties, and the cultivation of flowers for decoration was prohibited.
Swartz was also very active in the Academy affairs. At the same time he became
internationally renowned as a rising star within the field of natural sciences. The Italian traveler
Guiseppe Acerbi on his grand tour of Scandinavia visited Stockholm in 1799. He had a low opinion
on the level of learning at the Academy of Sciences including celebrities such as Thunberg and
Sparrman. Only Swartz found favour with the critical Acerbi, who wrote: "Mr. Swartz, justly
celebrated throughout all Europe as a distinguished botanist. He excels particularly in the class of
cryptogamia. To his literary merits he adds the advantage of obliging manners, and of a
communicative and generous disposition."
In 1811 Swartz was appointed to the prestigious position as Secretary of the Academy of
Sciences. He had a heavy work-load, since he was also Professor Bergianus and head of the
Hortus Bergianus, curator of the Academy natural history collections as well as the Royal collections,
and Professor of Medicine at the Karolinska Institutet.
The Swartz Herbarium
After Swartz' death the Academy of Sciences bought his library and herbarium, and the
main part of the latter is now at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm. Since
Swartz was rather generous with his specimens, they are also widely dispersed and may be found
in a score of herbaria worldwide.
Family life and friends
In 1794 Swartz married Sara Elisabeth Bergh, a lawyer's daughter from Uppsala. She
was beautiful and talented, but suffered from poor health and died only few years later, leaving her
husband alone with two small children, one son and one daughter. The son, named Olof Carl,
became his father's devoted assistant in scientific and curatorial work from 1812 onwards.
Swartz was a likeable and charming person, who easily made friends. The closest were
Thunberg and Acharius, but Swartz was also a mentor and inspiration for a younger generation of
scientists such as Goran Wahlenberg, Carl Adolph Agardh, Elias Fries and Johan Emanuel Wikstrom.
At the age of 57 years Swartz contracted a cold during an autumn walk in Stockholm.
The illness developed to a severe 'nervous fever' from which he died on 19 September 1818. He
is remembered as a keen and lynx-eyed explorer of the West Indian flora, eminent pteridologist,
prominent bryologist, and the author of many genera and species of cryptogams and flowering
plants. The tropical genus Swartzia Schreb. of the legume family comprises about 140 species of
shrubs and trees, some of which are cultivated as ornamental plants.
6 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
MY FOUR DECADES WITH TRADITIONAL PLANT TAXONOMY
R. R. Rao
Abstract
Feelings and experiences of the author over Classical Taxonomy in India during the last 4 decades is
discussed. Brief history and outline of development of the subject is provided. The systematic
exploratory phase of taxonomy is said to have started around the middle of 16* century and with two
major events, the subject reached its peak. The first one being the development of the concept of
Herbarium and second one being the introduction of the Binomial System of Nomenclature by Linnaeus
in 1753. Both the events laid the firm foundation for Classical Taxonomy. But during the last few
decades with the development of Bio-systematic phase, although revolutionary changes in concepts of
taxonomy could be noticed, the Classical Taxonomy got completely side tracked. Discussing the
Current Status of Taxonomy in the country, the author emphasizes the dwindling nature of the subject.
Among many other causes, development of more fashionable and experimental areas of modern biology,
faulty methods of teaching by untrained taxonomists in most Universities, lack of sufficient taxonomic
literature and herbaria, synthetic nature of discipline of taxonomy, lack of sufficient number of practicing
taxonomists and field botanists to carry out the survey and documentation of the vast diversity of the
flora of India, most taxonomic journals with least or no impact factor, low citation index of Classical
Taxonomists, development of computer databases and computer identification devices by non-
taxonomists, molecular biologists side tracking the Classical Taxonomists in areas of biodiversity
assessments, avoidance of taxonomists by modern biologists in programmes of Bioprospection, apathy
towards the subject by fund giving bodies and lastly, least recognitions of Classical Taxonomists by
scientific bodies are cited as prominent reasons for the decline of the subject. Although Botanical
Survey of India has done a commendable job in accomplishing the tasks of Taxonomists, somehow, the
organization has failed in generating and enthusing the required number of younger taxonomists and
group specialists in the country. Worse is the case with many Universities who have, to some extent
killed the subject. All these factors have collectively brought about a serious decline in the subject
resulting in the acute shortage of younger generation of field botanists and taxonomists who are to
shoulder the big responsibilities of inventorizing the rich biodiversity in the tropics. However, the
situation is not that hopeless. The achievements of Classical Taxonomists during the last 4 decades in
inventorization and documentation of the flora of the country is commendable. Today the dimensions
and scope of the subject have widened beyond imagination. Floristic taxonomists are sought after by
many for taking part in applied aspects such as bio-prospection, new drug discoveries, search for
alternate economic plant resources, conservation of biological resources and monitoring of fragile
ecosystems. The author strongly feels that taxonomy with the additional objectives and broadened
scope will certainly regain its past glory and become one of the challenging disciplines of biology in the
21st century.
Key words: Clessical plant taxonomy, Four decades, Current status, India
Introduction
While thanking the Society of Angiosperm Taxonomy for the great honor done to me by
awarding the Prestigious Y.D. Tyagi Gold medal for the year 2008,1 wish to share with you some
of my own feelings and experiences over the past 4 decades with regard to the subject of Classical
or aptly 'Traditional' Plant Taxonomy in India .Through this lecture, I am not focusing on any
particular topic of taxonomy, but certain burning issues faced by traditional taxonomists are
highlighted.
Plant taxonomy is one of the earliest of all botanical disciplines. The subject started as a
"folk taxonomy" in the early 15* century has undergone revolutionary changes during the last five
hundred years with regard to both concept and scope. Yet, regrettably, taxonomy has not secured
the place it ought to have. Partly, taxonomists themselves are to be blamed for this .At the global
level, in spite of the serious efforts to explore the flora of the earth during the last 4 centuries,
modern taxonomists are still to face the challenge of completing the inventories of the floras,
particularly of the tropics.. The situation has now become highly critical because the tropical
countries which hold rich floras are now under great threat. So far 450,000 plant species are
identified, of which 290,000 are flowering plants. Approximately, 2 million plant species are still
expected to be discovered in the tropics. The same holds good for India. While the need for
ISBN : 978-93-5067-867-1 Systematics of Flowering Plants 7
intensive exploration and the need for holistic information on all plant species have become urgent,
the number taxonomists throughout the world is drastically declining. Added to this, birth of many
dynamic, experimental and fashionable areas including the latest Cell and Molecular biology has
rendered the conservative classical taxonomy unfashionable and unattractive to the students. In
India, the decline in taxonomic activities and expertise has now reached a crucial point where the
other disciplines which rely on adequate levels of taxonomic information are being hampered.
History of Plant Taxonomy
In order to look into the major causes of the decline of classical plant taxonomy, we need
to go back to the pages of history of the subject. The origin and development of the discipline is
certainly a long chequrred history which broadly comprises three rather overlapping phases such
as, (a) exploratory phase, (b) consoliditation phase, (c) biosystematic phase. The organized
exploratory phase in plant taxonomy can be traced back to the middle of sixteenth century with the
development of the concept of preserving plants in dry condition, which later came to be known as
herbarium. With the establishment of the first herbarium in 1553 in Padua, Italy, the exploratory
phase reached its peak with several botanists exploring different regions particularly of Europe
and led to the establishment of numerous herbaria in the world by the middle of 17th century.
Botanists like Caesalpino (1590-1603), Bauhin (1560-1624), John Ray (1627-1705), Tournefort
(165 8-1708) in the pre-Linnaean era contributed significantly to the understanding of the concept
of species, classification and even nomenclature. Publication of the historic Species Plantarum
by Linnaeus in 1753 and introduction of a more organized binomial system of nomenclature, the
exploratory period saw very intense activities on both plant exploration and classification of the
species in some orderly way. Some artificial systems of classification including the sexual system
of plant classification by Linnaeus were put forth.
The intense explorations and collection of vast number of plant species in the exploratory
period gradually led to the consolidation and publication of a number of works proposing different
natural systems of plant classification including those of de Candolle (1778-1841), Bentham
(1800-1884) and Hooker (1817-1911). Further, with the publication of the book on the Origin of
Species by Charles Darwin in 1859, the concept of the species was totally changed. Based on the
principles of theories of natural selection the revolutionary idea of the Biological Species concept
was introduced by Dobzonsky in 1931. The enunciation of the biological species concept was
another great advancement in the history of plant taxonomy and led to the proposition of the so
called phylogenetic system of classification instead of artificial or natural systems. A few important
ones in this direction are those of Endlicher (1805-1949); Eichler (1837-1887); Engler & Prantl
(1887-1915); Bessey (1845-1915) and Hallier (1868-1938). Some of these classification systems
were later improved by contemporary botanists like Takhtajan (1969), Cronquist (1968, 1981),
Hutchinson (1973); Stebbins (1974); Robert Thome (1976) reflecting the phylogenetic or
evolutionary status and origin of the families. These classifications were founded on detailed studies
on distribution, ecology, anatomy, palynology, cytology and to some extent biochemistry of plants,
and this process is an unending trend which will continue.
The last sixty years or so marks the biosystematic phase and has seen revolutionary
changes in the concepts of Classical Taxonomy. The New Systematics (term introduced by Huxley,
1940) in the Biosystematic phase of taxonomy brought about a renaissance in the area of taxonomy.
An alternative term, Biosystematics was also introduced by Camp and Gilly (1943). The species
concept was more firmly established and meant that species as a group of interbreeding populations
which are reproductively isolated from such other populations. The classical experiments of Clausen,
et. al. (1939) and those of Turesson (.1922,1925) clearly acknowledged the fact that ecology or
the environment of the plant plays a major role in relation to genetic makeup of the plant in
population differentiation and speciation and this led to the experimental taxonomy in the middle of
20* century. Experimental taxonomy or the Biosystematics is largely concerned with genetical,
8 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
cytological, ecological and biochemical aspects of plants and involves study in experimental gardens
and in field. Although, the New Systematics or the Experimental Taxonomy or the Biosystematics
has brought about a qualitative improvement in the area of taxonomic concepts and did help in
better understanding of the process of trends of evolutionary biology, but being limited to the study
of populations, these concepts have not contributed much towards the theories of classification.
Classical vs. Experimental Taxonomy
Experimental taxonomy is not a substitute for classical taxonomy, but complimentary to
it both aiming at the same objective. But in reality, the birth of experimental taxonomy has created
an obvious disparity between classical (orthodox) taxonomists and the biosystematists, each one
contradicting the other, hampering the development of the subject. Raven (1974) feels "perhaps
the most important discovery of the past 25 years has been the realization that biosystematic
studies do not lead to an unequivocal definition of taxonomic categories - genera, species, subspecies:
they contribute to our understanding of the populations and the processes by which they have
changed but they do not dictate the taxonomic decisions that have to be taken in the light of this
information." The New Systematics or Experimental Taxonomy mainly covering the study of
diversity and differentiation of organisms and the relation that exists between them, gradually got
separated from the operational aspects such as collection, naming and classification which were
treated under Classical Taxonomy or Orthodox Taxonomy. During the last 40 years or so, the
taxonomy has become clearly a synthetic discipline. Today, the taxonomists are assigned the
responsibility of assimilating the tremendous amount of new information generated from the modern
disciplines such cytogenetics, chemistry, anatomy, palynology, ecology, numerical taxonomy,
molecular biology and so on on one side and on the other side, entrusted with the responsibility of
exploring the vast biological diversity of the earth. It is here both the classical taxonomists and the
modern biologists have failed. Experimental taxonomists treat the floristic works of taxonomists as
mere age old hobby of the 16th century botanists being continued in the 21st century. But classical
taxonomists are still to face the great task of completing the inventories of the earth. The number
of new species that are described and are being described in many groups of plants particularly in
tropics suggest that there are at least twice as many yet to be named as have already been
described. In India also, constantly hundreds of new species are being discovered and numerous
additions to the existing flora are being reported. One can imagine the magnitude of the problem by
a recent revisionary study (Subhasis Panda, Debjyoti Bhattacharyya & Dipanwita Banik, 2006,
unpublished) of a single family, Ericaceae by the Botanical Survey of India wherein 77 new taxa
and new reports are reported from the north east region of India. Therefore, classical taxonomists
believe that even in 2008, the task of exploration is incomplete and that significant surveys are still
needed in under explored or unexplored areas, especially in parts of Himalayas, North East India,
Western Ghats and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Current Status of Taxonomy
(a) Taxonomy in Universities
Taxonomy today is a dwindling subject, mostly avoided by younger generation, who are
more attracted towards some of the fashionable and experimental areas of modern biology.
Taxonomy teaching (and research) in most Universities is much neglected. Instead of trained
taxonomists handling the course, the subject is taught by non-specialists who just narrate the
characters of families without actual field work. The students on the other hand, feel that there is
no charm or scope in studying just the family characters. The syllabus of taxonomy in most
Universities limits to only certain classical aspects without bringing any of the modern thinking.
Therefore, a sort of aversion has developed among the students towards this subject. The trained
teachers certainly can play a major role in making the subject interesting, but as in most Universities
non taxonomists handle the course, the subject is gradually declining. Even those Universities
which at one time produced excellent taxonomic contributions, have today shifted their focus to
ISBN : 978-93-5067-867-1 Systematics of Flowering Plants 9
other modern areas of biology. Added to this, taxonomic literature and herbaria which are
fundamental for taxonomy teaching and research do not exist in most universities. Some Universities
even think that Herbaria are redundant and holding large bundles of specimens of a particular
species do not serve any purpose. The utility or functions of a herbarium are not even understood
by some of our senior scientists and policy makers in Universities. Taxonomic literature, being very
vast and expensive, universities avoid procuring of these literature and just rely on some classical
text books for their teaching purpose. Field work should be an integral part of taxonomy teaching.
A trained teacher can always enthuse students and bring in the joy of learning taxonomy through
field works. But, the policy makers and senior academicians ignoring this fact, recruit teachers
with modern specializations rather than with taxonomy background. Khoshoo, (1980) discussing
the status of the subject in India, aptly says "Having been a University teacher for the first 16
years of my career and a student of biosystematics although, I have seen in gradual but perceptible
decline in taxonomic teaching and research during the last 30 years....Teaching institutions in
general have had a direct responsibility in making the subject unpopular by asking the students to
cram botanical terms, characters of taxa, taxonomic systems, and keys to orders, families supported
with little, if any practical work" .
(b) Taxonomy as a synthetic discipline
Taxonomy during the last four to five decades has emerged as a synthetic discipline
encompassing information from all areas of modern biology. Taxonomists of today are expected to
be "chemo-cyto-histo-eco-morpho-molecular taxanometricians" and are expected to compare the
data in their hand generated over three to four centuries with the data generated through modern
disciplines during just four to five decades. This is where the traditional taxonomists have partly
failed. Also, it is too much to expect from the traditional taxonomists all these. Ideally, taxonomy
today is a co-operative venture. But, such cooperative ventures have not been satisfactory. Modern
biologists, not only tend to avoid classical taxonomists and at times even overshadow them. In
collaborative programmes, taxonomists are normally avoided stating that the only contribution of
taxonomists is the identification of the plants under investigation. Such people forget that in naming
a species, taxonomists' vast field knowledge and experience exist at the back. The author is of the
opinion that taxonomists, even though know the names of the species should never readily disclose
the names, rather, they should do so after elaborate exercise of identification. It is only then the
role of taxonomists would be recognized. According to Khoshoo, (1995) "The taxonomists are a
"Vanishing tribe" among the biologists and are today overshadowed by the so called and more
often second rate biotechnologists and environmentalists". Taxonomists by virtue of their
conservative nature, are unable to compete with modern biologists and have remained confined
themselves to the study of "dead plants in a herbarium with a dry lens". It is these taxonomists who
argue that their conservative findings are not completely incorrect, but rather forms the foundation
for all modern disciplines. However, the take home lesson for traditional taxonomists should be that
even though they practice the herbarium taxonomy, he should be aware of some of the modern
trends and knowledge that have emerged from the modern disciplines. This will certainly help him
in taking decisions while describing new taxa as and when these are discovered.
(c) Some significant accomplishments of taxonomists in India
Although taxonomists during the last three to four decades have done a commendable
job and have brought about substantial number of massive floras and publications (State level
floras- 55; District floras-52; Revisionary studies-55 families; Flora of India -8 volumes ) often,
they are criticized by modern biologists and other policy makers that taxonomists are just carrying
out duplication of work and that some of the floras published during recent years are nothing but
mere repetitions of descriptions and lengthy nomenclature adopted from earlier publications. While
this cannot be false, taxonomists are also criticized that they have not been able to complete even
their basic task of survey and inventorisation of the flora of the country during the last five to six
10 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
decades. Botanical Survey of India, whose mandate is primarily the Survey and inventorisation of
the Flora of the country, has in fact done a commendable job in this direction. Since its reorganization,
B.S.I, alone has described 29 new genera and 800 new species from India and has completed the
basic task of survey of flora fairly well ( Lakshminarasimhan, Pers. Communication, 2008). Now,
the time is therefore crucial for taxonomists ,as on one side the floras of the earth are fast disappearing
due to developmental programmes and on the other hand, the practicing taxonomists are drastically
declining making the job of existing taxonomists much more difficult.
(d) Taxonomy Journals
There are also other problems faced by traditional taxonomists. By virtue of the nature
of the subject, almost all taxonomy journals have no or least impact factor compared to journals of
modern biology which have very high impact factors. This again puts the traditional taxonomists in
a disadvantageous position when his contributions are compared with other biologists for awards/
recognitions by Scientific Bodies like the Indian National Science Academy, Indian Academy of
Science or The National Academy of Science. The Citation Index of taxonomists is also normally
much lower when compared to experimentalists. Therefore, only a negligible percentage of
taxonomists get recognized by some of these Academies. I only feel that the good contributions of
taxonomists must be compared with other taxonomists or field botanists rather than experimental
biologists for awarding any recognitions. Same is the case with the funding of traditional taxonomy
projects. Although now there is a greater realization of the importance of classical taxonomy, yet a
sort of apathy is shown by funding agencies in granting funds for classical taxonomy projects.
(e) Taxonomy and Biodiversity
Taxonomy is the study of variation pattern in living organisms and their classification
while biodiversity is the study of assessment of total variation in living organisms of a region or of
a taxa. The biodiversity could be studied at the genetic level or molecular level or at the species
level. After the Rio convention greater emphasis is given to address this problem and catalogue the
biodiversity of the country. But again, it is the molecular biologists who are reaping the harvest by
side tracking the classical taxonomists who have been assessing the diversity at species level
during the last three to four centuries.
(f) Taxonomy and Bioprospection
Bioprospection involves the scanning of entire biodiversity for short listing elite drug
plants or novel molecules. Taxonomists through ethnobotanical investigations have been short
listing species for various ailments. Such species can be taken up for bioprospection. Taxonomists
have the basic knowledge of distribution and availability of a taxon, their unique properties, their
cultural usage etc. and thus can significantly contribute to bioprospection of flora. But taxonomists
are mostly avoided in these programmes though basic information is gathered from taxonomists.
While the flora of the country is more or less known, the economic significance of a vast majority
of the species is little understood. Field studies and ethnobotanical investigations although have
highlighted many medicinal and aromatic plants, systematic bioprospection of these involving
taxonomists, biotechnologists, molecular biologists, phytochemists and plant breeders are almost
non existent. We have already listed little over 200 wild aromatic species from the Deccan region
which need to be subjected to further scientific scrutiny for identifying their potential as future
commercial aromatic crops. Taxonomists certainly can aid in such programmes but the experimental
biologists also must come forward on a collaborative footing so that the national biodiversity is best
utilized for benefit of one and all.
(g) Computers and Taxonomic Databases
The last decade particularly, has witnessed intense activity in development of taxonomic
databases. Several organizations (with liberal funding) from funding agencies are involved in the
ISBN : 978-93-5067-867-1 Systematics of Flowering Plants ] \
development of computer databases of the flora of India. Regrettably, these activities are being
accomplished again by non taxonomists or at best, a couple of taxonomists are being hired for such
databases. While, the vast data generated by taxonomists for centuries are being used in these
databases, taxonomists are not given due recognition, rather they are being criticized by non
taxonomists that "taxonomists always upset the well established names" without even understanding
why such name changes are brought about. Therefore, databases developed by non taxonomists
who do not understand the intercresies of the nomenclature are always questionable.
Computer generated identification of plants is another trend today. Yes, computers greatly
aid in quick identification of a given set of species through their images and characters. Such an
effort is certainly helpful for non taxonomists. However, there are certain drawbacks - firstly, only
those plants/species included in the software can be identified. Any new or additional species if
encountered cannot be identified with computer databases. Secondly, there is no room for recognition
of variations in computer generated identifications. As species are always dynamic and not static,
fixed characters and shape revealed by a computer may not always be correct. The computer
taxonomists however argue that as there are no sufficient taxonomists to identify the plants, future
identification rests only with computers. Competent taxonomists often tend to make use of such
short cut methods for identifying the species and in the process lose their competence. A good
taxonomist is one who has the capacity to identify any species on the surface of the earth making
use of the Floras. Therefore, computer identification softwares though useful for layman and non
taxonomists, it is a kind of threat to the declining taxonomists.
Concluding remarks
It is clear from the preceding discussion that the subject of taxonomy although one of
the oldest of all biological sciences, is dwindling. Yet, the importance of Orthodox Taxonomy
cannot be down looked. Because of the conservative nature of the subject and because of the birth
of several newer, challenging and fashionable disciplines, the subject is neglected by most biologists.
Added to this, even policy makers and funding agencies show a sort of apathy towards the subject
resulting in the acute shortage of field taxonomists who are to shoulder the big responsibilities of
inventorizing the rich biodiversity in the tropics. However, the situation is not that hopeless. Today
the dimensions and scope of the subject have widened beyond imagination. Floristic taxonomists
are sought after by many for taking part in applied aspects such as bioprospection, new drug
discoveries, search for alternate economic plant resources, conservation of biological resources
and monitoring of fragile ecosystems. The author strongly feels that taxonomy with the additional
objectives and broadened scope will certainly regain its past glory and become one of the challenging
disciplines of biology in the 21st century. Finally, the author through this article, makes a sincere
plea for all biologists to join hands for urgent resurrection of the discipline.
Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi,
for awarding the Emeritus Scientistship., The award of Y.D.Tyagi gold medal to the author for the
year 2008 by the Society of Angiosperm Taxonomy is also gratefully acknowledged.
12 International Seminar on "Multidisciplinary Approaches in Angiosperm Systematics"
Some pertinent references
Clausen, J., Keck D.D. and Hiesy, W.M. 1939. The concept of species based on experiment. Amer. J. Bot.
26:103-106.
Cronquist, A. 1968. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. Boston.
Cronquist, A. 1981. An Integrated System of Classification ofFlowering Plants. Columbia Univ. Press. New
York.
Engler, A and Prantl, K. eds. 1887-1915. Die naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Stebbins G. L. 1974. Flowering Plants: Evolution Above the Species Level. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard
Univ. Press.
Camp, W. H and Gilly, C. L. 1943. The Structure and origin of species with a discussion of Intraspecific
variability and related nomenclatural problems. Brittonia 4: 323-385.
Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. 2 vols. Stockholm.
Hutchinson, J. 1926,1934. The Families ofFlowering Plants, Vol 1 & 2 Arranged According to a New
System Based on Their Probable Phylogeny. London: Macmillan.
Huxley, J.S. 1940. The New Systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Raven, P.H. 1974. Plant systematics./l«n. Miss. Bot. Gard. 61:166-178.
Dobzhansky, T. 1935. A critique of the species concept in biology. Philos. Sci. 2:344-355.
Thorne, R.F 1976. APhylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. Evol. Biol. 9:35-106.
Takhtajan. A. 1969. Flowering Plants: Origin and Dispersal (Tr. C. Jeffrey), Oliver & Boyd. Edinburgh.
Turesson, G. 1922. The genotypical response of plant species to the habitat. Hereditas 3: 211-350.
Turesson, G. 1925. The plant species in relation to habitat and climate contributions to the knowledge of
genecological units. Hereditas 6 :147-236
Khoshoo, T.N. 1980. Symposium on modern trends in plant taxonomy-why this symposium? In:Nair, P.K.K.
(ed.) Glimpses in Plant Research, 5:1-4.
Khoshoo. T.N. 1995. Census of Indian Biodiversity: Tasks ahead. Curr. Sci. 69 (1): 14-17.
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles ofSyetematic Zoology. McGraw Hill, New York.
