I think it only serves to promote an image of cutthroat botanists engaged
in an eternal battle for one-upmanship. Of course opinions will differ.
There will be lumpers and there will be splitters. Some researchers will
place greater or lesser significance on certain characters or techniques.
Do these differences in opinion serve to shed more light on variability,
or the validity of alternate classifications? Or do they show that the
other guy is just an oaf who's finally loosing it after breathing too
much paradichlorobenzene from the herbarium case linings? :-)
The labels of "good science"/"bad science" are bandied around so much, I
wonder... who is the enemy here? I've come to hate it the way the botanists
I've worked with will glibly refer to so-and-so as a "bad researcher". Seems
the only "good researchers" are the ones they're buddies with personally!
And so we have "non-botanists" like Taylor and Lowrie and Katterman
producing the interesting stuff, while "real botanists" can't fund this
kind of research because it's not expensive/trendy enough!
But yes, the real new species ARE interesting! (like GeoHINTONIA!) :-)
Michael