In the early 1960’s, when I envisaged this effort, there was no National plant checklist, no National plant atlas, and no single publication available to identify all of the plants beyond a single region of the United States. Indeed, from the beginning, my intention to produce a North American flora was purely selfish. I wanted to know the size of our flora, where our plants grew, and how to identify them. As my efforts expanded and knowledge increased, these rather nebulous and uncertain goals became clearer.
Perhaps it is understandable that the flora has taken nearly five decades to complete. The number of vouchers contained within the repositories of North America could exceed 70,000,000. Additionally, botanical references dealing directly or indirectly with North American floristics number well into the thousands, with additional thousands of floras, florulas, manuals, guides, checklists, theses, dissertations, conservation articles and published books. Some of these works contribute as much to confusion as they do to our knowledge of the flora. Moreover, a relatively high number of exotics and waifs, not previously reported for North America, are added annually to the flora, exacerbating the problem.
Compounding further the difficulties in assessing our flora, is the rapid increase in molecular and other types of scientific research, which continue to augment many of our well-established taxonomic positions nearly on a weekly basis. Unquestionably, far more taxonomic modifications of our flora have been made within the past decade-and-a-half than in any previous comparable period, and the rate of change appears unabated. Consider this: since the 1999 release of the Synthesis of the North American Flora CD-ROM, 37 additional plant families, nearly 400 additional genera, and more than 1,400 additional species have been added to our flora, with over 6,300 new names and new combinations proposed.
Many plant families and genera with once widely accepted circumscriptions are now defined so differently as to confuse and confound all but the individuals producing the new taxonomies. Although most of these new circumscriptions and taxonomies are justified by newer evidence, others are far less convincing. Whether or not the endorsement of these new taxonomies is wise or even necessary, the science of plant systematics is experiencing such an upheaval as to confuse all but a relatively few who have the time or resources to follow the numerous taxonomic augmentations. Unfortunately, when the fundamental underpinnings of any science (or non-scientific field!) are altered so substantially, many of the participants and followers will not know where to turn for guidance. We hope that the BONAP websites and Floristic Synthesis to follow, will help remedy the situation by serving as guides to all users, both professional and amateur, who are interested in knowing the most current and most accurate application of names and the most pragmatic taxonomies to use for the North American vascular flora.
The consequence of instability in plant systematics is far more reaching than simply academic. Many laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Noxious Weed Act, and others, are defined and defended on the basis of the plant taxa included within them. When the taxonomy of the species within these laws is changed so often and so profoundly that it is difficult for our law enforcement agencies to enforce them, then we have a significant problem. Equally problematic with this broad-based shift in taxonomy, is the difficult situation created for researchers in related fields such as horticulture, plant ecology, plant physiology, plant morphology, etc. whose responsibility it is to keep current with all of these latest taxonomic changes. Unless one has access to exceptional libraries, it is virtually impossible to keep current. Many museum and herbarium curators are overwhelmed in their effort to organize specimens to conform to the latest taxonomy. Indeed, if it were not for BONAP’s facilitated access to good libraries, well-maintained and internally-linked databases, constant re-assessment of taxonomic positions, and most fortunately, our extensive interactions with specialists across the globe, producing this website would not have been possible.
With all of this activity, it is understandable that some of our long-standing names, which have historically been used in regional manuals and floras from the onset of our taxonomic understanding, appear to be applicable no longer. Even since the 1999 publication of the Synthesis, many familiar genera, such as Acacia, Anagalis, Arabis, Arenaria, Boisduvalia, Camissonia, Centaurium, Centunculus, Chamaesyce, Conyza, Cryptantha, Cupressus, Cymopterus, Dalibarda, Duchesnea, Erianthus, Gaura, Glaux, Hedyotis, Isopyrum, Leiophyllum, Lesquerella, Libocedrus, Lilaea, Linanthus, Listera, Loiseleuria, Lotus, Ledum, Lycopsis, Onosmodium, Polygonum, Potentilla, Saxifraga, Schoenocrambe, Waldsteinia, Zuckia and many others have been relegated to synonym, redefined or modified so extensively as to be recognized no longer.
Although far more effort is required to improve our understanding of the North American flora, we hope the botanical community and general public will view the TDC and NAPA as new standards upon which to build. We plan to update the websites annually, or whenever a sufficient number of changes accrue. Individuals are therefore encouraged to use our websites. Indeed, WE NEED YOUR HELP to fill in missing county-level records, to correct errors and omissions, to add images to the photographic collection, and to use the BONAP websites as teaching tools to help young students and adults to become more appreciative and knowledgeable about our rich and diverse flora. With community-wide participation in helping to advance these common goals, over time, the results could be profoundly beneficial to both the general public and the scientific community. All who share a common interest in promoting a better understanding of our natural resources are welcome to join BONAP, and to help advance further our knowledge of floristics across the continent. (See section on How Can I Contribute to BONAP.)
Alphonse DeCandolle closed the introduction to his Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique, presented to the first Botanical Congress of 1867 in Paris, with the following comments:
“There will come a time when all the plant-forms in existence will have been described; when botanists will have made, unmade, often remade, raised or lowered, and redefined several hundred thousand groups from classes to mere varieties, and when synonyms will have become much more numerous than accepted groups. Then science will have a need of a great revision of its formulae…. Then perhaps there will arise something wholly different from Linnaean nomenclature, something so designed as to give certain and definite names to certain and definite groups.
“That is the secret of the future, a future still very far off. In the meantime let us perfect the system of binomial nomenclature established by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt it better to the continual, necessary changes in science … to drive out small abuses, small negligences; and if possible, to come to agreement among ourselves on disputed points. Thus we shall prepare the way for the better progress of taxonomy.”
From a “free translation” by C. A. Weatherby (1949) Symposium on Botanical Nomenclature, II: Botanical nomenclature since 1867. American Journal of Botany 36:5-7.
-JTK