I'll never forget the smug comment from my undergraduate-college roommate
(a physics major) upon noticing the "Systematic Botany" textbook I was using
one semester.......he asked if that title wasn't just a little bit
redundant.....was I going to take "Unsystematic Botany" next semester???
:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: diford at wvnvm.wvnet.edu [SMTP:diford at wvnvm.wvnet.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 4:01 PM
To: plant-ed at net.bio.net
Subject: taxonomy vs. systematics
I appreciated everyone's thoughts in response to Martha's question
of
'Botany' vs. 'Plant Biology.' An analogous issue that I wish to
propose
concerns the course 'Plant taxonomy' vs. 'Plant systematics.' At
another
school, I taught the former, using a text (Jones & Luchsinger) of
the
latter title. At my current institution I inherited the course name
to
match the book. In both cases, I covered a combination of plant
families
and topics relating to classification, nomenclature, identification,
and
phylogeny (including theories of population biology and evolution).
I
consider the two terms to be essentially synonomous, although I
believe
that 'taxonomy' would be identified as the "classic," older, and (by
some)
more narrow discipline. In that sense, 'systematics' is a better
name for
the class, especially with a broad focus like my course has.
However, I
found (to my amazement) that some students (perhaps the same who are
ignorant of the meaning of 'botany') think that the subject of
systematics
is growth, development, and/or physiology. I am interested in
hearing
other experiences and interpretations of this issue. Thanks in
advance!
Donna I. Ford-Werntz West Virginia Univ.
Herbarium Curator (WVA) Box 6057
Asst. Prof. Biol. Morgantown, WV 26506
425 Brooks Hall (304)293-5201 X2549
email: diford at wvu.edu fax: (304)293-6363
Web site at http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/
