Nomenclatural stability, taxonomic instinct, and flora writing — a recipe for disaster?

Systematics might seem to be in danger of fission if recent authors are taken liter­ally. Some suggest that only monographs or floras are needed, with funding for phylogenetic studies being discontinued. Stability of nomenclature for the users of classifications (largely other than biologists) is considered to be a paramount need; species (and other taxa) should be readily recognisable, and a ‘broad view’ taken of variation, with all characters being carefully evaluated. Taxonomic intuition is seen as being of great importance, but an understanding of function and ecology is also central for classification. Academic argumentation is to be iso­lated as far as possible from the public perception of taxonomy and systematics. Is this what herbaria are for? Others see phylogeny reconstruction as central to comparative biology and ultimately to a stable classification. The probable difference between many taxonomic species and the units involved in, or even proximally produced by, evolution seems clear, as is the concomitant need for a much finer analysis of variation than is common. Taxonomic ‘intuition’ is seen as the result of the taxonomic apprenticeship system; the human mind is capable, if inconsistent, when recognising gestalt; it is quite inefficient when simultaneously compar­ing numerous variables. Is this what academia is for? I attempt to understand these positions, drawing both on my work on the Malesian flora and as an academic. One important point is simply that of relating the limited goals and expertise of individuals to a broader vision of systematics. However, we have but a single system of nomenclature and, for many groups, a single accepted classification, and therein lies much of the current tension. Systematics is a discipline that deals with the history of life, and we forget this at peril of our professional integrity.