摘要
Ｎｏｏｔｅｂｏｏｍ和ＰｅｔｅｒＲａｖｅｎ都认为中国的分类学家往往持有狭隘的物种概念，而这是由于他们缺少足够的标本，尤其是模式标本，因而不能充分研究种的变异性。Ｒａｖｅｎ说这使他相信中国植物分类学中真正的物种概念颇有模式概念的色彩。他们的说法不无道理。的确，中国的植物区系中可能有大量的种其真实身份还有讨论的余地。根据单个性状或完全按营养器官性状来命名新种是常有的事。有些学者甚至把发表新种作为其分类工作的主要目标。现有的、为数非常有限的关于中国植物变异式样研究的证据证明有些“种”实际上是生态宗（Ｃｌｉｎｏｐｏｄｉｕｍ）、地理宗（Ｃｕｎｎｉｎｇｈａｍｉａ和Ｉｎｄｉｇｏｆｅｒａ）或呈地形梯度变异式样的分类群（Ｌｅｓｐｅｄｅｚａ和Ｒｈｏｄｏｄｅｎｄｒｏｎ）而已。根据表型的可塑性变化而命名的种曾经或仍然被作为“好种”对待（Ｒｏｒｉｐｐａ）。具各种不同叶形特性的种间杂种的分离系被命名为不同的种（Ｉｌｅｘ）。分类学上本来就已经很复杂的无融合生殖复合体由于新种的不断增加而变得更加复杂（Ｍａｌｕｓ）。对一个具有复杂变异式样的种的精心研究导致对２５个种名的归并，其中有１０个是８０年代由中国分类学家发表的（Ｃｌｅｍａｔｏｃｌｅｔｈ?
Nooteboom (1992) and Peter Raven (pers.comm.) have pointed out that Chinese taxonomists often hold a narrow species concept and that this may due to the small volum of collections, especially type specimens, available to them which led to the unadequate study on the variability of the species. Raven remarked that “this leads me to believe that the actual concept of species used in plant systematics in China tends to be fairly typological”. What they said are by no means unreasonable. Indeed, the taxonomical status of a considerable number of species in the Chinese flora is probably open to question. New species based on a single character or solely on vegetative characters are of frequent occurrence. Evidences from a very limited number of researches on the patterns of plant variation heretofore available in China have shown that some “species” are, in fact, ecological races (Clinopodium), geographical races (Cunninghamia & Indigofera),or taxa with topoclinal variation (Lespedeza & Rhododendron). Species based on plasticity of phenotype variation have been or still regarded as “good species” (Rorippa). Segregates of an interspecific hybrid with diverse leaf characters have been given different species names (Ilex). The originally complicated situation in taxonomy of an agamic complex becomes even more complicated after the publication of additional new species (Malus). A careful analysis of a species with rather complicated patterns of variation leads to the combination of 25 specific names, of which 10 were published in the 80's by Chinese taxonomists (Clematoclethra). Examples of these kinds will greatly increase with the broadening of research work at the species level. Orthodox plant taxonomy is based largely or solely on morphological characters. The exomorphic characters have the practical advantage that they are relatively easy to observe and to record. The taxonomical species concept can meet the needs of general purpose classification. But the notion that the taxonomical species concept is a solely intuitive judgement or preference of an individual worker and one could hardly say what is right and what is wrong is quite problematical. The species category today is much more capable of objective interpretation than ever before. A correct species concept stems from a correct and thorough understanding of the nature of variation pattern of plants and its taxonomical value. Hence, as a herbarium taxonomist, the first thing is to study as many collections as possible. Secondly, the incorporation of evidence from other sources whenever possible is highly desirable. These evidences,if they are not very useful as taxonomical criteria,are frequently of great significance in contributing to a better understanding or interpretation of the variation pattern of a given taxon. The taxonomist might find the discontinuities he seeks better expressed in either the phenotypic or the genetic variation. A logical application of these two sorts of criteria would lead to a more rational classification at the specific level in a great many genera.
出处
《植物分类学报》
CSCD
1998年第5期470-480,共11页
Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica
