Use of the rank of forma

[Thomas Lammers]

At 07:50 AM 10/2/00 -0700, you wrote:

>Shows how little I work with forma--I hadn't a clue that this was true. Are
>infraspecifics not thus hierarchic?

Depends on what you mean.  They are, in the sense that form is subordinate
to variety, etc., and that priority only applies within a rank.

>  If two different subspecies have white
>flowers, and a type from one is designated f. alba, can white-flowered
>specimens of the other legitimately be called f. alba, based on the same
>type? (I realize they wouldn't have to be.)

That would be a taxonomic not a nomenclatural decision.  Do you include
these individuals within the circumscription of a taxon and give that taxon
a certain name, even though these individuals don't conform fully to the type.

Folks who cherish formae get around this by describing the white-flowered
morphs of the various subspecies and varieties with different heterotypic
names: f. alba, f. albiflora, f. candida, f. albescens, f. clarkii, etc.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous