40
material became available, these species were placed in new and often exclusively
New Zealand genera ”. Such changes did not take place until the late 1980s.
Utilitarian biases can also be found in the roots of scientifi c taxonomy. Both
grasses (Graminae) and sedges (Cyperaceae) are widespread and ecologically
important in Europe, and both groups are diffi cult to identify, because of their small
fl owers [ 123 ]. However, grasses are extremely important as food crops or as fodder,
whereas the sedges are not. The result was that Linnaeus created 30 small genera of
grasses (based on folk taxa ), compared to a single sedge genus Carex , in which were
included 29 species. Ironically, the historical explanation also accounts for the pro-
fusion of monotypic genera seen across all plant and animal groups—as new spe-
cies were discovered, they were placed in the old Linnaean families, so as to cause
minimal disruption to that venerable classifi cation scheme. Both Walters [ 123 ] and
Clayton [ 124 ] provide good historical evidence that the creation (by taxonomists) of
most of the fl owering plant monotypic genera occurred in post-Linnaean times.
Also drawing on Willis’ [ 125 ] “ hollow curve ” data, Walters provides an illuminat-
ing example: of the genera in one subgroup of the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae),
six of the eight most species-rich genera (having 10 to 300 species each) are found
in Europe, whereas 23 of the remaining 25 genera with less than 10 species each (14
being monotypic genera) are from Asia, Africa and the New World.
Walters is not alone in claiming that certain aspects of scientifi c classifi cation
have little to do with real divisions in the natural world:
It emerges that so far no biological counterpart has been found for the genus... Its formal
defi nition remains substantially in its original form as an abstract and arbitrary level of
morphological difference.
Nevertheless, though its biological meaning is far from clear, the genus is deeply
entrenched in taxonomic thinking, and few biologists would attempt to deny its existence.
Nor is it purely a construct of modern science, for many of our present genera have been
taken almost unchanged from traditional folk taxonomies ([ 124 ], p. 150).
Most importantly, Clayton asserts that many taxonomists continue to add taxa to
pre-existing classifi cations using decidedly non-biological criteria. Taxonomic
revisions based on new evidence are also slow to take hold—the information in local
fl oras and fi eld guides therefore needs to be used with a great deal of caution.
...There is an obvious confl ict between the theoretical acceptance of large genera, and
mnemonic rejection of them... the outcome tends to be weighted in favour of convenience,
appreciating the practical advantage of simple circumscription and easy identifi cation.
...The conclusion that convenience, in the sense of possessing useful mnemonic and dis-
criminatory properties, is a necessary ingredient of the genus concept may be unwelcome
to the purist. However it is worth refl ecting upon the divergent treatments that widespread
genera commonly receive in local fl oras, whose authors are unaware of the full range of
variation, or the reappraisal of generic limits that must often follow the discovery of new
species. Such examples demonstrate that our perception of a genus is disconcertingly sensi-
tive to the sample of species available, a circumstance which renders a quest for total objec-
tivity somewhat unrealistic. (p.151)
Cronk [ 126 , 127 ] takes a more conciliatory view regarding the nature of plant genera,
and of the disproportionately large numbers of monotypic genera in modern classifi ca-
tions. While concluding that both ‘real’ and ‘artifi cial’ components lie hidden in modern
2 Ethnotaxonomies and Universals: Investigating some Key Assumptions