Question

3 lustrate taxonomic hy nichy with suitable example
from plant & animal?​

Answer 1

Explanation:

Science is that domain of human activity for which all kinds of formal stereotypes, dog-

matic rules, authoritative instructions act as especially dangerous poison – but neverthe-

less it is nowadays dominated by stereotypes, dogmas and directives. Whether submitting

a grant proposal, defending a doctoral dissertation, or attempting to publish a paper in an

obligatorily "peer-reviewed" journal, we must be aware that any deviation from the cur-

rent fashion, i.e., adoption of somewhat unorthodox assumptions, application of a less

familiar method, original interpretation, let alone presenting an unpopular subject or non

trite form of presentation, drastically decreases the likelihood of success. One of the

particularly "unshakeable" axioms is "exact demarcation of aims and unequivocal

formulation of the problems to be solved" as a necessary precondition of effective work,

although in fact excessive "exactitude" and "univocality" are neither needed nor even

advantageous – to the contrary, except for some very narrow questions (which, however,

rarely occur separately, usually appearing as particular aspects of broader research pro-

grams), are in most cases decidedly harmful!

There are genius with a flair for research will not benefit from instruction in the methods

of research, but most would be research workers are not geniuses, and some guidance as

to how to go about research should help them to become productive earlier than would if

let to find these things out for themselves by the wasteful method of personal experience.

Claude Bernard, the greatest French physiologist, said: "Good methods can teach us to

develop and use to better purpose the faculties with which nature has endowed us, while

poor methods may prevent us from turning them to good account. Thus the genius of

inventiveness, so precious in the sciences, may be diminished or even smothered by a

poor method, while a good method may increase and develop it. In biological sciences,

the role of method is even more important than in the sciences because of the complexity

of the phenomenon and countless sources of error."

The object of taxonomy is the almost unimaginably diversified world of living creatures:

the studies comprise the entire process from meticulous analysis of intra- and

interpopulational relations to the, resisting any schematic approach, final synthesis in the

form of a natural classification. Neither the methods of research nor the results seem

unusually attractive to society (fascinated by technological gadgets and "sensations").

Practical applications are rarely the direct effect of work, and still less frequently appear

within a short time; all this (and many other factors) makes this branch of science

especially susceptible as well to all kinds of bureaucratic restrictions, formalisms and

authoritative regulations (WHEELER 1995).

Many scientists (and still more non-scientists), fascinated with the achievements of pre-

sent-day technology, begin to consider them the panacea that will solve all problems,

making traditional, "non-modern", tools and methods of taxonomic work outdated and

superfluous. This is especially the case at the stage of interpretation, when with increas-

ing frequency the computer has been treated not as an aid for the scientist's brain, but as

a substitute allowing (or even coercing) one to switch the brain off. A computer evalua-

tion of computer analysis based on models selected by the computer and statistics calcu-

lated by the computer, providing – in many instances unquestionably useful – prelimi-

nary material for considerations involving all the other available evidence, has been

instead attributed the status of the Revealed Truth relieving the author from the necessity