Taxonomic Practices and Indian Concerns

Plant taxonomy can become complicated if handled without restraint/caution in floral documentation. Effectively, taxonomic practices provide a procedure/method for naming, reporting (publishing) and subsequent cautious filing of materials in the herbaria. A literature scrutiny provides multiple examples of lack of seriousness and dishonesty in varied areas of taxonomic research. In reporting new species, it is always desired to have an in-house deliberation for opinion, as collective wisdom/expertise helps the authors eliminate any omissions that might appear later in publications. Rediscovery reports from India frequently fail to be relevantly content-spirited. Their reporting requires great prudence and rigorous scrutiny. In this article, the long existing partial knowledge in unisexual plants in a few angiosperm families is discussed. Many a time, irrationally, status judgements (IUCN statuses) are assigned to species with inadequate information on distribution details. Nomenclature and taxonomy should go hand in hand to bring in clarity regarding any taxon and to resolve issues. Naming or struggle for a right name appears to be the priority for a near nonexistent species than for their fresh collections. Issues on naming of plants after one’s own masters or relatives to oblige them are also deliberated. Concerns related to herbaria maintenance and failing in the deposition of types and vouchers in herbaria are discussed. The literature without specimen base leads to ambiguity, and spells a debacle in revisionary works and consolidation of floras. Further, there are also apprehensions linked to publishing new combinations based on publications from elsewhere and without having a grasp/judgement of the genera involved. There are also articles concerning lectotypifications undertaken by taxonomists without due enquiry. Such publications may help promote the concerned authors in their careers, but contribute little and generate greater noise in the subject.