Dep. Biology, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow University, Vorob'evy Gory, Moscow 119899, Russia. e-mail:timonin@3.hiplants.bio.msu.ru

Abstract

Modern systematics using strict formalism of taxonomic constructions approaches the state of respectable exact science. It also tends towards "inflation" of taxon rank, "splitting" and "monotypization" of taxa. This tendency results in more uncertain classification, even when sophisticated methods of cladistics are applied, as well as in more limited extrapolative potentials of particular object research. It leads to the decrease in predictability of classification and, hence, diminishes the significance of systematics for other biological branches. The doubts arise about the traditional claim that the systematics should regulate the whole biological knowledge serving as a universal data base and being therefore a privileged branch of biology. Advanced classification outside the systematics clearly show that "monotypization" of taxa and "inflation" of their ranks are common results of classification taking into account maximum characters of an object (taxon). The tremendous increase in number of characters used in classification results in strensthening the holistic image of the objects. It is essentially different from the Popper - Kuhn standard of science and compares the systematics to art. Though such "image approach" allows to distinguish taxa and to deal with some of them, it can be neither evidenced nor effectively and adequately reproduced. The systematics would become an exact science if only it deals with minimum characters for classification. All schools of systematics, however, have been negatively treating this way of dealing. It opposes both the widespread notion that the systematics is a privileged branch of biology and the biologists' idea about the uniqueness of biological objects. That is why the systematics is likely to be doomed to waver between science and art. It can neither confine itself to ostensive description of taxa nor become a standard science (at least the practical systematics). Even cladism appeared as a methodology of systematics remains just a part of phylogenetics while the systematics has assimilated it with considerable distortions.