The Question is from neet-botany , and it was created by the author Mr. NARESH KUMAR K

Question

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?

Mr. NARESH KUMAR K · Accepted Answer

## CORE INFORMATION
✓ **Answer**: C
## CONCEPT FRAMEWORK
 **Primary Concept**: Taxonomic Classification and its limitations
 **Related Topics**: Species discovery, Taxonomic keys, Monographs, Variation within species
 **Prerequisites**: Understanding of taxonomic classification systems, the use of dichotomous keys, and the limitations of published resources.
## SOLUTION PATHWAY
**Given Information**:
  * An unusual marine organism is discovered.
  * A taxonomic key and a published monograph provide conflicting classifications.
  * Both the key and the monograph are assumed to be reliable within their respective scopes.
**Method & Steps**:
 1. Analyze the potential reasons for the discrepancy.
  Reasoning:  Since both resources are considered reliable, the problem isn't inherent flaws in the resources themselves.  The discrepancy must arise from limitations in the data they represent.
 2. Consider the possibilities.
  Working:  An outdated key might miss recently discovered species. A specialized monograph might focus on a subset of organisms, missing variations. A fundamental error in the system is less likely given the reliability assumption. The most probable explanation is that the organism represents a new species or an undocumented variant.
 3. Evaluate the most likely explanation.
  Result: The organism may represent a newly discovered species or a variant not yet documented in the monograph.
  Verification: This explanation aligns with the fact that both resources are considered reliable within their scope, implying the discrepancy is due to incomplete or missing information rather than errors in the resources themselves.
 ## OPTION ANALYSIS
A :x: The key being outdated is possible, but less likely than the organism being new or a previously undocumented variant.  The monograph might also be outdated.
B :x: While a monograph might be too specialized, this doesn't fully explain the discrepancy if the key leads to a different, equally valid, classification.
C ✓: This is the most plausible explanation.  New species are constantly discovered, and variations within known species might not be fully documented in existing resources.
D :x: A fundamental error in the taxonomic system is a less likely explanation, given the assumption that both the key and the monograph are reliable within their scope.
 ## LEARNING AIDS
 **Common Mistakes**:
  1.Assuming a single, definitive answer exists in taxonomy: Taxonomy is constantly evolving, and classifications can be refined as new data emerges.
  2.Overlooking the limitations of taxonomic keys and monographs: These resources are snapshots in time and may not reflect the full diversity of life.
 **Quick Tips**:
  1.Always consider multiple sources when classifying organisms.
  2.Remember that taxonomic classifications are hypotheses subject to revision.

Mr. NARESH KUMAR K · Answer

The key is outdated and needs revision.

Mr. NARESH KUMAR K · Answer

The monograph is too specialized and overlooks common variations.

Mr. NARESH KUMAR K · Answer

The correct Option is "The organism may represent a newly discovered species or a variant not yet documented in the monograph."

Mr. NARESH KUMAR K · Answer

There's a fundamental error in the taxonomic system itself.

NEET Botany MCQs

Select Chapter

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

Question Tags

NEET Subjects

Our Bots

Company