TAXONOMY OF THE HIGHER PLANTS 205 



for taxonomical purposes. In many instances a reevaluation of previously 

 worked families and genera has yielded extremely valuable information. And 

 one point stands out above all others. It is important to assess the data ob- 

 tained from all parts of the plant in a combined way. The vulnerability of 

 conclusions drawn from the overemphasis of data from a single structure or 

 feature of a group of plants has been so clearly demonstrated that no one 

 should fall into such a trap today. 



The rather large accumulation of a wide range of information over the 

 past five decades has not been fully exploited for the purpose of producing 

 a system of classification of the higher plants. Various attempts during this 

 period have resulted in improvements over the older systems, but none have 

 met with universal acceptance. It would be entirely out of place here for 

 me to attempt to evaluate the different systems now "on the books." Per- 

 haps it will suffice to point out that the growth of paleobotany and the con- 

 tributions of this subject to a better understanding of major plant groups are 

 notable. Furthermore, the influence on future systems should be consider- 

 able. This, combined with the more searching studies in comparative anatomy 

 and morphology concerned with phylogenetical relationships, should provide 

 a better basis for a sound taxonomical system than has been available hereto- 

 fore. We look confidently to the future. 



MONOGRAPHS AND FLORAS 



Much of the research in taxonomy is ultimately published in the form of 

 monographs concerned with particular plant groups or in the form of floras 

 concerned with plants of a given area. There are, of course, many other types 

 of publication, and seemingly there is an increasing tendency toward short 

 papers. Pressure to publish short definitive papers dealing with a single 

 problem comes from at least three sources. One is the demand by adminis- 

 trators for activity in research on the part of faculty or staff. This is sym- 

 bolized by publication and a large bibliography. Second is the attempt by 

 editors and managers of journals to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for 

 more and more costly journal space by keeping the papers as short as pos- 

 sible. Thirdly, there is the ever-present tendency in science to reduce the 

 reporting to symbolism. Most sciences do not suffer too much by these pres- 

 sures toward brevity because an adequate job of reporting can be done in a 

 limited space. However, taxonomy does suffer publication-space limitation 

 because of the very nature of the subject. In a first-rate taxonomical mono- 

 graph, there are elements of history, geology, geography, climatology, pedol- 

 ogy, and sometimes chemistry, in addition to the numerous aspects of botany 

 previously stressed. The synthesis of information from such diverse sources 

 requires considerable publication space. 



There is at present a steady flow of new monographic treatments of dif- 



