中国植物分类学中的物种问题

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

Nooteboom和Peter Raven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(Clematoclethra)。诸如此类的例子随着研究工作的扩大而势必大量增加。传统

植物分类学主要或完全以形态性状为依据。外部形态性状具有比较容易观察和记录的优点。分类学种

概念能满足多种用途分类的需要。但如果把分类学种概念说成是完全凭分类学家个人的主观判断或甚

至偏爱而很难有是非之分就颇成问题了。现在比过去任何时候都有条件对种这个分类阶元作客观的解

释。正确的物种概念来自对植物变异式样及其分类学价值的正确和充分的理解。因此，作为标本室分

类学家，首先要研究尽可能多的标本。其次，尽可能收编来自其他方面的证据是十分可取的。这些证据

即使不是很有用的分类性状，对更好地了解或解释类群的变异式样往往具有重要的意义。分类学家可

借以发现他所寻找的分类群在表型或基因型变异上的间断。对这两种间断的合理应用将导致在许多属

内种级水平的更加合理的分类。

关键词: 物种问题, 植物分类学, 中国

Abstract:

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 actu-

al 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 ), geo-

graphical races (Cunninghamia & Indigofera ), or taxa with topoclinal variation (Les-

pedeza & 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 publi-

cation of additional new species (Malus). A careful analysis of a species with rather compli-

cated 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 ex-

omorphic 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 classifica-

tion. 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 interpre-

tation than ever before. A correct species concept stems from a correct and thorough under-

standing 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 signifi-

canee 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 ei-

ther the phenotypic or the genetic variation. A logical application of these two sorts of criteri-

a would lead to a more rational classification at the specific level in a great many genera.

Key words: Species problem, Plant taxonomy, China

徐炳声. 中国植物分类学中的物种问题[J]. 中国科学院大学学报.

[1]	谷永建, 李玉梅, 韩龙, 苏鑫. 中国东部表土磁化率与现代气候因子的关系及其环境意义[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2019, 36(4): 498-509.
[2]	毕恺艺, 牛铮, 黄妮, 寇培颖. 道路网络对景观生态风险的影响——以“中国-中南半岛经济走廊”为例[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2019, 36(3): 347-353.
[3]	杨振, 雷军. 中国地级及以上城市城镇化发展的时空格局及影响因素[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2019, 36(1): 82-92.
[4]	袁旻舒, 李明旭, 程红岩, 丁菊花, 李函微, 彭长辉, 朱求安. 基于CMIP5模型结果的中国陆地生态系统未来碳利用效率变化趋势分析[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2017, 34(4): 452-461.
[5]	常乐, 钱安, 易爽, 徐长仪, 孙文科. 基于卫星重力、卫星测高和温盐度综合数据的中国近海各区域海平面变化[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2017, 34(3): 371-379.
[6]	谢祖欣, 韩志伟. 基于排放清单的中国地区人为排放源的年际变化[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2014, 31(3): 289-296.
[7]	赵曌, 石敏俊, 袁永娜. 市场潜力与中国制造业区域差异[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2010, 27(3): 338-349.
[8]	高燕, 曹伟. 中国东北外来入侵植物的现状与防治对策[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2010, 27(2): 191-198.
[9]	崔永伟, 胡瑞法, KELLY Peter, 梁洛辉. 中国北方偏远地区农户作物的选择[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2009, 26(3): 338-349.
[10]	郭腾云. 区域投入波动与增长的数量关系研究[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2009, 26(1): 65-71.
[11]	常朝阳吴振海徐朗然 . 中国豆科植物一新记录种－－小花红豆草[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2006, 23(2): 193-194.
[12]	刘国祥胡征宇 . 中国淡水甲藻新记录[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2006, 23(2): 248-253.
[13]	郭腾云; 徐勇; 杨国安. 区域发展政策与区域经济增长空间收敛[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2006, 23(1): 91-96.
[14]	张守信. 中国地层标准化的建议——中国地层命名法规的建议[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2005, 22(5): 604-623.
[15]	贾渝, 汪楣芝, 吴鹏程. 中华高地藓目前在西藏的记录基于错误鉴定[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2003, 41(6): 582-585.

中国植物分类学中的物种问题

The Species Problem in Plant Taxonomy in China

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

访问统计

联系我们