Cwn Classics in Plant Sciences and Their Impact on Current Research

In a delightful book called Garden Facts and Fancies, Alfred C. Hottes, former associate editor of Better Homes and Gardens, notes that “plants stand so patiently in the fields that we are accustomed to think that they are cahn and immovable, whereas there is a feverish activity going on at all times. ”1 I believe that the same can be said of plant-sciences research. As noted in our last plant-sciences smsdyses in 19752 and 1980,3 plant studies often receive less recognition and have less visibility than the other life sciences, perhaps because they are not perceived as having a direct bearing on human health. And whereas plant researchers often use relevant data and methodology from the life, physical, and chemical sciences, the reverse situation is less often the case. Plant sciences, and particularly botany, are often thought to be rather static, or “calm and immovable, ” 1 areas of study. But our past citation studies have shown that plant sciences are ve~ dynamic. To explore the “feverish activity going on at rdl times, ”l we have updated our citation data using information compiled in the 1955-1986 Science Citm”on Index” (SCF ). Modem plant-sciences research encompasses a variety of fields. Its foundations were laid during the seventemth and eighteenth centuries when scientists were beginning to employ experimental methods, which emphasize objectivity. The first research disciplines in plant sciences were the descriptive sciences of taxonomy and morphology, but as a result of advances in other scientific fields, botany bgan to branch out. For example, the development of the microucrot3er 3, IYW