The concept of phytoplankton functional types has emerged as a useful approach to classifying phytoplankton. It finds many applications in addressing some serious contemporary issues facing science and society. Its use is not without challenges, however. As noted earlier, there is no universally-accepted set of functional types, and the types used have to be carefully selected to suit the particular problem being addressed. It is important that the sum total of all functional types matches all phytoplankton under consideration. For example, if in a biogeochemical study, we classify phytoplankton as silicifiers, calcifiers, DMS-producers and nitrogen fix- ers, then there is danger that the study may neglect phytoplankton that do not contribute in any significant way to those functions, but may nevertheless be a significant contributor to, say primary production. Such considerations often lead to the adoption of a category of “other phytoplankton” in models, with no clear defining traits assigned them, but that are nevertheless necessary to close budgets on phytoplankton processes. Since this group is a collection of all phytoplankton that defy classification according to a set of traits, it is difficult to model their physi- ological processes. Our understanding of the diverse functions of phytoplankton is still growing, and as we recognize more functions, there will be a need to balance the desire to incorporate the increasing number of functional types in models against observational challenges of identifying and mapping them adequately. Modelling approaches to dealing with increasing functional diversity have been proposed, for example, using the complex …