Locality data

Hannon othonna@gmail.com
Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:50:27 PDT

100% agreed on the way things are trending in academia. What I lament most
in modern botany is that a large proportion of botanists is dismissive of
the importance of producing useful products: keys that work, floras,
revisions, monographs, information (books) available outside the arcane
journals. The "internet age" has done very little to break the barriers
between amateurs and the more scientific information they seek.

The emphasis (read: funding) today is almost exclusively on theoretical
modeling (cladograms), molecular level studies, etc. These scientists seem
absorbed primarily in process and method rather than output, which they may
see as static or instantly archaic. So understanding is increased in some
areas but the audience that benefits by that understanding shrinks because
of the evermore technical nature of the output and its venue.

I would liken your Phlox flunkie to those who say that the organism is
irrelevant-- its molecular history and variation are what matter, whether
it be fish or fowl. "Let's sequence it before we form our views". Does that
not show a similar ignorance and contempt for living things?


More information about the pbs mailing list