key requirement for publication

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

> But what is lacking in most old and many
>  new descriptions is: What Has It Common With Related Species! In other
>  words, usually the (presumable) synapomorphs are not indicated.

Very good point. If I say "Similar to Planta hypothetica
but with purple flowers" I am implying but not stating
that they have the same leaf shape, stem pubescence, etc.
But the two species might differ in other ways beyond
the flower color. Indeed, if there were only one character
separating the two, I would desire more evidence that
the new taxon was worthy of recognition as distinct.
    A dichotomous key would not necessarily address this
point. Most such keys concentrate on differences between taxa
one character at a time. The are better ways in which to
discuss similarities and differences between two
closely related species.
   My basic point is that there are thousands of different
circumstances, each with its own solution. Sometimes the
solution may be very simple, other times complex. Compare
the following two statements:

1. Planta novissima has purple flowers.

2. Planta novissima has purple flowers whereas all the
other members of this genus have yellow flowers.

In my humble opinion, #2 has successfully distinguished
between this new species and all of the others related. A
few more such comparisons and a key becomes superfluous
in establishing the novelty of the new species.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
who believes very strongly that one should
not have opinions.