Flora of India (Series 1-4)

Abstract

adult forms, and thus interpretations based strictly on the latter may lead to false homologies. Of course, false homologies may also result from more obvious pitfalls of limited sampling and ignorance of taxonomy. For example, Klucking treats Eugenia cumini/Syzgium cumini/S. jambolanum and Jossinia aherniana/E. aherniana (not aheraniana) as five species instead of two (one would think that identical specific epithets might at least be a clue to nomenclatural synonymy). Not surprisingly, the supposedly different species have the same type of leaf venation (see pp. 254, 255). Additionally, there are Klucking Eugenias that are proper Syzygiums, and vice versa. Similar traps involve other large genera. My strong impression is that volumes 1 and 2 suffer from problems comparable to enumerated for volume 3. There clearly is much information in these works, and, in fact, the descriptions of some taxa are probably very worthwhile contributions, especially the accounts of small or monotypic genera such as the monotypic Whiteodendron and Lindsayomyrtus described fairly recently (1952, 1973) or Kjellbergiodendron described longer ago (1936), but which I have never seen misidentified. And even Klucking's general account of Eucalyptus based on the vasculature of the supposed 90 species he studied may be representative of the actual diversity of venation in the genus since eucalypts are fairly obvious as a genus, though difficult for most people to identify to species. Nevertheless, volume 3, and probably the entire series, is seriously flawed by the potpourri of misinformation and information and the lack of even a minimal taxonomic base. Buying the series is an expensive proposition. Relying on it will be a dicey business. I have often wondered about the fate of snippets of leaf, wood, flower, or pollen I have seen taken from herbarium specimens that have obsolete names and/or clear misidentifications. Now I know. Snippet and morphology may have a place at the high taxonomic levels where just a handful of samples are used to represent a family and where problems of generic and species taxonomy do not really affect. Unfortunately, at the lower taxonomic levels the snippet approach divorced of systematic considerations treads on many minefields. Sherwin Carlquist in his still quite useful book Comparative plant anatomy (1961) has a valuable introductory chapter entitled The ethics of comparison, which cites a number of relevant, now ancient papers on this lesson. It is a real shame that we must have continual proof in biology of George Santayana's 1905 dictum that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfil [oft misquoted as relive] it. [Rudolf Schmid, UC]