中国植物资源丰富, 长期以来被外国人所关注和研究。直到1916年, 中国植物分类学者才开始独立研究本国植物, 并经历了从民国时期开始自立、到1949年后自主完成《中国高等植物图鉴》《中国植物志》等国家级和相对完整的地方植物志以及中外合作完成英文版的国家植物志Flora of China、再到21世纪新一代学者每年更新《中国生物物种名录》并且开始主导国际性植物分类学研究工作等3个主要时期。统计表明, 超过3,000位中国学者参与过植物命名或植物名称处理等命名相关工作, 近些年更是达到每年新增100人左右的新高。但这种繁荣局面与中国植物分类学的衰退状况彼此矛盾。为了解释这个矛盾, 结合对历史回顾的深入分析说明, 真正能够反映分类学发展程度的量化指标应当是“活跃”分类学者数目。这个数目在21世纪停滞不前, 表明当今的分类学人才队伍建设仍存在不少问题, 特别是新分类群的发表与系统学研究脱节, 对分子系统学证据的应用仍有不足, 以及科研评价体系偏重于论文影响因子等。本文因此提出了当今分类学者应该具备的6条技能标准: (1)具有科学精神和全球视野; (2)掌握学科内知识; (3)掌握学科外知识; (4)具备野外工作技能; (5)具备标本馆和实验室工作技能; (6)掌握文献和数据库检索技能。

Aims: Within the north temperate zone, China has the richest and most diverse national flora, which has attracted the interest of western plant taxonomists since the 17th century. However, Chinese plant taxonomists had not started studying their own national flora independently until 1916. Since then, the history of their studies can be divided into three main periods, from the founding period before 1949 to the independent completion of national and relatively complete various local floras such as Iconographia Cormophytorum Sinicorum and Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae, and the completion of the English version of the National Flora of China by Sino-foreign cooperation after 1949, and then to the new generation of scholars in the 21st century who updated the Catalogue of Life China every year and began to lead the international plant taxonomy research work. Despite the flourishing appearance in past years, there are many problems in the current training of students in the plant taxonomy field, such as irrelevant systematic studies of taxonomic treatments as well as an insufficient approach to molecular evidence. Advice needs to be provided based on precise statistics.
Methods: By systematically sorting out the detailed information of 3,154 plant taxonomists, excluding scholars who have not described novel plant species in over 10 years and who described only one species, a list of “active” scholars was generated. Author information from Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae, Flora of China, Chinese local floras, Flora of Pan-Himalaya and Catalogue of Life China (Plants) were also utilized, as well as a list of researchers of plant families in China.
Results: There is superficial prosperity in the number of Chinese plant taxonomists, many of whom described new plant species solely for “utilitarian” purposes. With these factors excluded, the current number of active scholars is roughly the same as that in the late 1970s. In addition, many plant taxonomists are still ignorant of the close relationship between plant systematics and taxonomy and do not pay enough attention to molecular methods.
Conclusion: Based on the historical data and current situation, we present six standards for contemporary taxonomists, encouraging skill analysis using hexagonal radar charts.