Use of the rank of forma

[Richard Jensen]

One important part of taxonomy is recognizing diversity.  Perhaps the use
of formae will help us do that.  But the discussion in the last few
contributions has raised an interesting point.  We have (we believe) a
product - the biological diversity we see around us.  We also wish to know
something about the process - this is often addressed by conducting
phylogenetic studies, most often using a cladistic approach, to develop
hypotheses about how that diversity arose (and, perhaps, provide a
predictive view of that diversity).  But, we cannot examine the process
until we know what the product is; i.e., we cannot conduct
phylogenetic/cladistic analyses until we have identified the entities
whose phylogeny we wish to investigate.  These entities are usually
identified by a variety of tools that generate data allowing us to be
confident about their being discrete groups of living organisms.  If we
believe them to be so, then we apply a name to assist in data retrieval,
etc.

All of this is taxonomy and I don't see that there is a necessary single
end to being a practicing taxonomist.  Cladistic methods don't discover
diversity, and other approaches don't (or are not expected to) lead to
phylogenetic hypotheses (although they may certainly provide a great
deal of insight to phylogenetic relationships).  They are all a
significant part what taxonomists do.

Are formae worth recognizing?  Probably not.  But, I can imagine a
scenario whereby a form may evolve into a new taxon.


Richard J. Jensen      |   E-MAIL: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Dept. of Biology       |   TELEPHONE: 219-284-4674
Saint Mary's College   |   FAX: 219-284-4716
Notre Dame, IN  46556  |