I’m just curious, if there are any opinions about choosing a form over a ssp. And vice versa
I can illustrate a conflict with the example given above (in the form dissimilis) where the form can be seen in the Andaman ssp. flavolimbatus (visibly, morphologically distinct)
My guess is a form is a previously described subspecies or species that no longer is recognized as a taxon but is still recognized as an identifiable entity, e.g., a “morph.”
For animals at least, I’ve always considered the word “form” to apply to a nonspecific taxon, whether species, subspecies, or perhaps even a higher rank entity.
I think we are entering the realm of differences between Zoological and Botanical nomenclature here. In Botany, “forma” is a formal infraspecific rank (along with subspecies and variety). I don’t know the Zoological rules very well, but it sounds like there is no such formal rank for animals. If that is the case, I would discourage folks from using the iNat rank “form” for non-botanical taxa, as it may give the impression that it is a “real” taxonomic name (or that iNat thinks it is) when it is not.
In Botany it is true that
but only when used as part of a multi-level infraspecific classification involving quadrinomial or even pentanomial names. Because iNaturalist only uses trinomial infraspecific names - in turn because those are the only infraspecific names with formal status in the rules of botanical nomenclature - all of the infraspecific ranks are considered the “same” rank. Only one such rank can be used in any given trinomial name.
If we were to use tags (But u cant add tags to other people’s posts)/put it in the notes as per form stichius in your reply… it works.
But that wouldnt be too user friendly would it?
Even putting it under observation fields… say i created a field for each family in Butterflies (Papilionoidea)… the list would be so long for each field
Wouldnt it be better for even the uninitiated to be able to see all the forms for each species at a glance? But perhaps tags/notes/observation fields are better? im not too sure.
The “form” rank should never be used for animals. It is intended for plants only. Form is an accepted taxonomic rank in botany, but not in zoology (although it is sometimes used informally to denote a morph). iNaturalist taxonomy follows formal accepted taxonomy. If you want to denote a specific form of butterfly, there is already an observation field intended for that specific purpose: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/20614. It already includes “dissimilis” as an option, so it should be easy to migrate the existing IDs to that observation field and delete the “form Papilio clytia dissimilis” taxon.
I’m not a lep expert, but for butterflies, I’ve also seen the terms “cool season form” and “warm season (or summer) form” which persumably suggests some difference in characteristics between different broods during the annual flight season. But these forms are not recognized taxonomically, although they might still be referred to by a no-longer-used subspecific epithet.
(Sorry if this is a stupid question, but can someone tell me if this is akin to color morphs not based on age or season within the same species? That is something with which I am familiar based largely on this beetle.)
As far as I can tell for animals, the terms form and morph are used interchangeably. Form is a very general term that can be applied to anything you’re trying to describe as different from something else.
“Endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful” – Darwin
This problem isn’t unique to butterflies. Virtually all animal groups have species that exhibit variable forms or morphs. These are consistently tracked through observation fields, not as taxa (unless they are actually described as separate subspecies). In fact, this is one of the more common uses of observation fields. If you click on the observation field, you can pull up lists or maps of a specific form/morph. It’s not quite as intuitive as navigating taxonomy, but it’s usable. In general, though, iNaturalist follows formal published taxonomy, since this reduces incompatibility with other databases like GBIF and also reduces subjective arguments about the delineation of taxa. The curator guidelines also recommend against using hybrid taxon concepts for the same reasons, although they are allowed.
