You discover an unusual marine organism. To determine its taxonomic classification, you consult a key, but it leads to conflicting results with a previously published monograph. Assuming both resources are reliable within their scope, what is the MOST likely explanation for the discrepancy?
The key is outdated and needs revision.
The monograph is too specialized and overlooks common variations.
The organism may represent a newly discovered species or a variant not yet documented in the monograph.
There's a fundamental error in the taxonomic system itself.
Related Questions
Which one is the important function of botanical garden?
Allow ex situ conservation of germplasm
Are place for recreation
Plant diversity can be observed
Provide natural habitat for wildlife
National botanical research Institute is situated at
Lucknow
Kolkata
Mumbai
Chennai
… is a book (taxonomic aid) which contain information about habitat, distribution, climate description and index of plant found in a particular area
Manual
Flora
Monograph
Key
Zoological parks are for which of the following?
Wild animals
Endangered plants
Pet animals
Domestic animals
By which chemical specimen for herbaria are treated to prevent fungal attack
0.1% mercuric chloride
0.1% mercurous chloride
Carbon disulphide
Acetic acid
A collection of preserved plant specimens is known as a:
Herbarium
Museum
Key
Flora
A place where dried, pressed and preserved plant specimens are kept
Herbarium
Museum
Botanical garden
Both (a) and (c )
… is a book (taxonomic aid) which contain information about habitate, distribution, climate description and index of plant found in a particular area
Manual
Flora
Monograph
Key
Largest herbarium in India is
Madras Herbarium Coimbatore (TN)
Central, National Herbarium (Indian Botanical Garden) Sibpur, Kolkata (WB)
Herbarium of National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow (UP)
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun (UA)
You discover an unusual marine organism. To determine its taxonomic classification, you consult a key, but it leads to conflicting results with a previously published monograph. Assuming both resources are reliable within their scope, what is the MOST likely explanation for the discrepancy?
The key is outdated and needs revision.
The monograph is too specialized and overlooks common variations.
The organism may represent a newly discovered species or a variant not yet documented in the monograph.
There's a fundamental error in the taxonomic system itself.
