Nomenclature of vegetation types and the Code: A few concluding remarks

Abstract

Ladislav Mucina Department of Biological Sciences. Kuwait University, P O. Box 5959, Safat, 13060, State of Kuwait; tax +965 484 7054, E-mail laco@kucOl.kuniv.edu.kw Keywords: Classification. Code of Phytosociogical Nomenclature, Syntaxonom2r Allow me to make one observation: the participants of this Forum seem to show a large amount of agreement on nomenclature. They all, explicitly or implicitly, admit that nomenclature is a necessary and useful tool. The disagreement precipitates when the Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (CPN; BARKMAN et al. 1986) is commented upon. Clearly, there is an urgent need for the recognition of the importance of effective communication (using nomenclature as a major vehicle), but opinions diverge on how this should be done. The problems of (and with) nomenclature (and terminology) are common to all sciences. As JULVE (1997) correctly puts it - "without a name a thing does not exist in the human mind". The problem of the CPN is a special one as it concerns exclusively the Braun-Blanquet floristic-sociological approach to the classification of vegetation. Still, it is far from being only of limited interest: this School is indeed the most successful one with regard to describing and classifying vegetation, its level of standardisation of procedures, it highly formalised nomenclature as well as its wide geographic acceptance. In my opinion, the major factor generating all the trouble, both with the CPN or with the nomenclature of vegetation types in general, is the conflict between the precision (plus lack of flexibility) and the user-friendliness (plus scientific freedom). I deliberately leave out the third leg of the cauldron (THEURILLAT 1997) -- the objectivity - because this is a major pre-requisite for acceptance of any scientific enterprise anyway. Precision breeds rigidity - a necessary evil with any rules, one may argue. An effort to make the CPN more precise will inevitably lead to rigidity and complexity. However, not all matters with which the CPN is supposed to deal (or is dealing with) are appearing with equal frequency or are of general importance. Why not limit the CPN only to basic matters of nomenclature, and leave those rare cases generated by the colourful past of syntaxonomy to be solved ad hoc by the Nomenclature Committee? It would do no harm to see it more occupied anyway. (Here I would strongly support the concern expressed also by KRAatmEC 1997 in this matter.) User-friendliness should become a major target for future development. Apparently, in this case [ am not speaking only for myself, as I have failed to locate any objection against boosting user-friendliness in any of the contributions to this Forum! It is not going to be a Sunday Forum: Names and nomenclature in phytosociology