Taxonomy by committee?

[Barbara Ertter]

Re: Taxonomy by Committee:

I've been involved with several aspects of this for some years now, first
by actually serving on such a committee to advise the USFWS on the
taxonomic status of the Scotts Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var.
hartwegii).  I've subsequently tried to cast light on the inherent
incompatibility between taxonomic reality and management programs that
assume the achievability of unambiguous classifications (i.e., with the
next "magic bullet").  These have been targetted at the local agency
biologists and native plant advocates, and accordingly published where not
readily accessible to the international systematics community.  I will be
happy, however, to send photocopies to whomever is interested.

Taxonomic grays vs. black and white expectations: implications for
conservation management of diversity.  pp. 11-13 in T.N.Kaye et al.,
editors, Conservation and Management of Native Plants and Fungi.  Native
Plant Society of Oregon, Corvallis. 1997.

Whither rare plants in The Jepson Manual?  Fremontia 22(3):23-27.  (with M.
Skinner) [justifies why it is appropriate for the California Native Plant
Society's "Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants" to continue to
recognize taxa that are lumped in The Jepson Manual, when there is
legitimate room for for a difference in taxonomic judgement, to "reduyce
the likelihood of lamentation over taxa that are shown to be distinct only
after their disappearance."]


Saga of the Santa Cruz spineflower.  Fremontia 24(4):8-11.  1996.
[includes a synopsis of the "taxonomy by comittee", which basically
resulted in an agreement to disagree.]

Barbara Ertter
Curator of Western North American Flora
University and Jepson Herbaria
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-2465