Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen - Genres

T. SMEKALOVA
seed collection of the Vavilov Institute, and herbarium collections of the Vavilov Institute
(WIR), the Komarov Botanical Institute (LE) and other botanical institutions
were included in this study. Herbarium work is the most essential step in every taxonomic
investigation (MCALISTER 1998), since it gives the opportunity for a comparative
study of a great number of specimens from different origins. The worldwide herbarium
collection of the Vavilov Institute contains over 500 specimens of 51 species
of the genus Lathyrus. Through this research the circumscription, structure and
status of the group of species, which earlier were included by different authors in the
section Cicercula (Medik.) Gren. and Godr. or in the subgenus Lathyrus, were revised
accordingly (KUPICHA 1983). We consider this group of species as a separate
subgenus, which includes 21 species. Four subsections and three series are distinguished
within it, mainly by a complex of morphological and anatomical characters of
flowers, pods and seeds, the structure of the vascular tissue in the stem and the
character of the seed coat. The evolution of the genus followed the path of separation
of annual from perennial species. The increasingly arid environment played a
key role in reducing the life cycle in a number of species and in the development of a
complex of specific morphological-anatomical characters of the vegetative and generative
organs. A system of intraspecific taxa has also been elaborated for polymorphic
species. The most complex intraspecific differentiation is found in the domesticated
species Lathyrus sativus.
In recent years, systematic investigations have often been based on the application
of a single method. Completely new branches of systematics have been established,
such as ecosystematics (MELIKYAN 1984), molecular systematics (DOYLE 1992), gene
systematics (ANTONOV 2000) and others. Concentration on one particular method
and lack of appreciation of others often lead to errors in phylogenetic reconstructions,
the latter being the main purpose of systematics. “A system is meant to reflect the
results of evolution, and evolution is a permanent search of the new” (SKVORTSOV
1979). A taxon will enter life’s arena only when it finds new ways to live. Consequently,
it is not possible to work out some uniform, universal rules for systematic
constructions. Systematics is a creative process, it is an interpretation, and although
based on concrete data from many sciences, it can be generated only by intellect.
“Modern systematics, being a complex and synthetic discipline, … cannot ‘exhaust
itself’, but rather the opposite because, due to its exclusive position in the system of
sciences, the circle of problems limiting the scope of systematics activity is perpetually
enlarging” (TIKHOMIROV 1979).
Acknowledgements
The assistance of Irina Sokolova (St. Petersburg), Richard Lester (Birmingham),
Clive Francis (CLIMA, Australia) and Helmut Knüpffer (Gatersleben) in improving the
English language of the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.
67