Re: Predictions for the future!?!

[Una Smith <una@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Norm MacLeod <N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk> wrote:

> Personally, I'd like to see more studies of morphology and ecology
> combined within an explicitly phylogenetic context ... but I have
> little hope that this will emerge as a dominant theme ...

Why not?  At the joint botany meetings in San Diego last month, there
were several excellent symposia that, together, suggest precisely the
trend Norm wishes for:

	Translating phylogenetic analyses into classifications
	Morphological and developmental mutants of maize
	Modern and paleophytogeography of tropical biology 
	The biology and evolution of the Gnetales
	Exploitative interactions of flowers and insects: 
		The evolution of balanced conflict
	Practical and theoretical aspects of incorporating fossils
		in analyses of modern taxonomic groups

I did not attend the North American evolution meetings this year, but
I hear that they were similarly phylogenetic and integrative,
especially with respect to angiosperm systematics and evolution.  The
only thing holding us back is the rate at which we can produce new
phylogenies (that is, cladograms).

As far as botany is concerned, I think this will be the decade when
we build a new and vastly improved phylogeny of all plants above the
family level, while building strong links between the development
and genetics of leaves and (especially) flowers.  And paleobotany
has already begun to play an integral role in the construction and
evaluation of many evolutionary hypotheses, new and old.

To me, the end of this century promises to be a very exciting time,
scientifically.  I am delighted to be a comparative morphologist in
this decade.  The Internet and various indispensable computer tools
(DELTA & INTKEY, PAUP, MacClade, etc.) have the potential to change
entirely the scale of the sorts of problems a lone morphologist can
hope to work on effectively, despite an absolutely miniscule budget.