As a beginning, I offer a quotation from MacLeod (2002): The fundamental observation of biology is morphology. Morphological data form basis of virtually all systematic descriptions. That this is so is reinforced by fact that vast majority of systematic studies begin by grouping organisms on basis of morphological similarity. Once they are so grouped, we begin to study relationships among groups, often by careful examination of variation in morphological features, but increasingly more often by using these morphologicallydefined groups as basis for conducting studies of molecular variation. To celebrate 50th anniversary of Taxon, editors put together a Review Series [Taxon 49(3) 50(3)] to document considerable progress and many new and exciting developments in our science (Prance, 2000). Interestingly, first paper in series (Endress & al., 2000), while dealing specifically with morphology, made no mention of morphometric revolution that has taken place during past 10-15 years (Rohlf & Marcus, 1993; Adams & al., in press). Stevens (2000; fifth paper in Jubilee Series), in a general overview, commented on role of methods in general and multivariate statistical techniques in particular, but he made no mention of (an odd oversight given his oft-cited paper, Stevens, 1991, focused on problems of dealing with quantitative [morphometric] characters in a phylogenetic context). In very next paper in series, Mishler (2000) discussed utility of morphological characters for phylogenetic analyses, yet made no mention of morphometrics. Morphology, per se, is not addressed again until last two papers in series (Dilcher, 2001; Sytsma & Pires, 2001), neither of which included a reference to despite latter providing insights into where plant systematics is headed. This is part of conundrum: why is which has long played a significant role in systematic botany and has undergone a revolution, not discussed by any of authors in Jubilee Series? Is it because we botanists have become so accustomed to multivariate statistical analyses of morphological data that we just assume there is nothing new in what's being done? Or, is it something deeper, perhaps darker, than that? Could it be specter of (Stevens, 2000)? MacLeod (2002) addressed general question of the persistent lack of a strong connection between systematics and morphometrics, suggesting that disconnect be traced back to... historical connections between systematic philosophy of phenetics and many morphometric procedures. In a patently antagonistic review of 1993 NATO-sponsored workshop in I1 Ciocco, Italy, Crowe (1994) concluded that morphometricians themselves...finally severed last pretension of links between phenetics and evolutionary trees. Crowe's (1994) argument was based largely on comments made by Fred Bookstein who, until recently, has argued that geometric morphometrics can provide nothing in way of phylogenetically informative characters (see Bookstein, 1994, for a thorough development of this view). Perhaps it should come as no surprise that was not discussed in Jubilee articles. Those articles that dealt with morphology all had, as might be expected, a decidedly higher-level focus (although Stevens, 2000, did comment on species-level uses of phenetic methods). That is, rather than addressing role of morphology at species level or below, discussions centered on role of morphology in a phylogenetic context. Quantitative morphology has not generally been accorded favorable status with respect to making contributions to phylogenetic studies. Pimentel &