But if species changes it’s usually not a change of the whole population, ancestral form often lives alongside new species, sometimes for long enough to give rise for another species in another region, it’s pretty well represented by humans. But 20k can be a short distance for a stable species, so if there’s nothing saying it’s that different, it’s the same as modern one.
1 Like
Regarding a species which has both a variety and a subspecies. I found something today. Commelina diffusa var. gigas. Commelina diffusa has a few subspecies such as Commelina diffusa subsp. montana. Some subspecies have been moved, so when I looked into POWO, those have become synonyms. Commelina diffusa var. gigas is currently as it is.
1 Like
Some related trivia:
Although the general consensus in the botanical world is “you must use rank-denoting terms (subsp., var., etc.) between specific and infraspecific epithets”, this isn’t really what the botanical code (ICNafp) says.
From Article 24, describing infraspecific names: “24.1. […] A connecting term is used to denote the rank.” You can choose to read this either prescriptively or descriptively. I assume the ambiguity is intentional.
Later in Article 24: “24.4. A name with a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet, but otherwise in accordance with this Code, is treated as validly published[.]” That would be names like this: Salvia grandiflora subsp. Salvia willeana. Or you might have an entry for Salvia grandiflora, and within it an entry for subspecies Salvia willeana. This is annoying but not wrong, so long as the (binomial) epithet is still clearly associated with the species to which it belongs.
From Article 37, on the criteria for valid publication of infraspecific names: “37.1. A name published on or after 1 January 1953 without a clear indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.” That’s surprisingly recent. Also, ranks must be clearly indicated—but there is no stipulation of the form that indication must take. For instance:
- Allocarya stipitata micrantha Piper, subsp. nov.
That’s not the usual format, but the rank is clearly indicated. However, Piper was not always this helpful:
10a. Arabis sparsiflora secunda (Howell)
There is no statement of rank directly associated with the name. We only know Piper is publishing a new combination because he puts the basionym author (Howell) in parentheses. But the rank is clearly indicated! On the first page of his introduction, Piper says he is following the “recently proposed Philadelphia Code”. And, as we all know, the Philadelphia Code only had one rank below species: subspecies. So, this is a subspecies. Such indirect evidence is counted as clear indication of rank in the historical literature, and the code does not establish a change in what counts as a clear indication of rank. I think Piper is actually in compliance with the post-1953 rules, though I wouldn’t want to test it.
And, last but not least, from Article 4: “4.3. Further ranks may also be intercalated or added, provided that confusion or error is not thereby introduced.” This seems designed to provide ambiguity without useful guidance. If the full set of infraspecific ranks already enumerated in the code (subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, subform) is not enough and we need to start intercalating more ranks, the result will surely be confusing.
3 Likes
The International Aroid Society has begun an official registry of cultivars, as well. This is actually intended to reduce confusion, as they apply rules akin to those for binomials, viz., that all specimens that match the description of a given cultivar are that cultivar, even if they had a separate origin; and the earliest published name for a given cultivar as defined above is the correct name.
Cultivars will not be added as taxa on iNat, but they are important to horticulturists. And although you will ofen see them written, for example, as Philodendron ‘Lemon Lime,’ I believe the formally correct way is, again, to indicate the rank, viz., Philodendron cv. ‘Lemon Lime.’ This cultivar has only a genus, no species, because it originated as a hybrid; however, it is also possible for binomial species to have named cultivars, e.g., Anthurium andreanum cv. ‘Waimea.’
5 Likes
You need not to omit ssp. etc in finally displaying the species and in the search bar selection table, but as jdmore suggested, no need for ssp when you type in an organisms name manually. If it then pops up as a xxx ssp. xxy var. zzz no harm done, one selects it and is happy.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.