“THE NEW SYNANTHEROLOGY” — A CASE IN POINT FOR POINTS OF VIEW

Abstract

We should like to extend our compliments to the authors of an article which recently appeared on the pages of this journal (The New Synantherology. R. M. King and H. Robinson. Taxon 19(1): 6-11). Had we not been adequately informed by these authors, we might never have known that the standard approaches to plant systematics are passe and not to be trusted. Indeed, we now eye with suspicion recent revisional work which was based solely on such bankrupt techniques as morphology, palynology, cytology and biochemistry. As you might suspect, our compliments come tongue-in-cheek. Far from convincing us that the compound microscope is the new-found panacea for all those who would research the Compositae, Messrs. King and Robinson seem to reveal a vast lacuna in their own knowledge of modern systematics. This is particularly apparent in their analysis of the methods presently used in the study of the Compositae. First, morphology is the proven backbone of all practical plant taxonomy (with the possible exception of certain so-called lower plants). We have not noticed that the prevailing opinion seems to reject morphological Nor can we accept their statement that morphology been just successful enough... to allow the perpetuation of the method into modern times. On the contrary, morphology has been perhaps the most successful single research tool of all the approaches. We ought rather to accept as exceptions the times when this approach is misleading. Probably no other research approach presents as much information to the taxonomist with such ease of observation. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that other approaches seem to be pursued with the intent of supporting and corroborating with general morphology. Second, it seems strange to us that while discussing palynology, the authors do not happen to mention recent developments which are the result of the use of the scanning-electron microscope. This is particularly disturbing because the authors, in their efforts to champion the cause of microcharacters, have completely ignored the one tool which would greatly improve their own approach. Presumably anyone knowledgeable enough to editorialize on the new synantherology would be acutely aware of the potential of this relatively simple approach. Third, cytology is far from old hat regardless of who said so. It also involves more than chromosome counting and has proven extremely useful in the study of apomictic complexes. Furthermore, ultra-structure is not without taxonomic significance although it is seldom studied with the sole purpose of elucidating taxonomic relationships. Even so, chromosome counts have greatly aided the taxonomist and are manifestly not, in the words of King and Robinson, yielding few practical results. Authorities in this field have these much more plausible words which appeared concurrently with King and Robinson's article. ... No 'bandwagon' in the evolutionary field has ever been more active or shown vitality so great. (Love and Love, 1970).