var. or f.

[SKÁLA Zdenek]

The opinion of Mr. Lammers prevails among botanists, as far as I know. I would still plea for retaining at least variety for some situations. Taxonomists should (or can at least) map the infraspecific variation, and ranks of var. and f. could be useful for this task. My favourite example: European Melampyrum (Scrophulariaceae/Rhinantheae) species form often early- and late-flowering populations. These populations can be slightly ecologically distinct but are scattered within the distribution area and most probably arise recurrently. Variety seems to be good choice of rank in such cases; at the same time recognition of these variants tell us something important about the species. Such cases need not be too frequent, I must admit.

Best!
Zdenek Skala


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Thomas G. Lammers
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:05 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: var. or f.


At 08:53 AM 11/8/2005, Dirk Albach wrote:
>a colleague and I just discussed possible definitions of the ranks of
>variety and forma. It is difficult to find exact definitions of these and
>those that can be found are contradictory, especially as there seem to have
>been different traditions in the Anglosaxon and the continental European
>communities. This concerns especially the questions a) how to treat
>single-allele mutants (e.g. flower color) and b) whether ecological
>modifications should be recognized at the rank of forma or even variety. I
>would be interested in your definitions ­ either published or personal
>opinion.

In my work, neither situation merits formal nomenclatural recognition..  In 
my opinion, the only groups of populations below species rank that merit a 
name are those that are not only morphologically discernible but that also 
show some level of geographic or ecological coherence, e.g., allopatry or 
parapatry, or occupation of distinct niches.  Variants within a population 
or variants that form discrete but scattered populations with no ecological 
correlation do not merit naming.  Under NO circumstances should variation 
that is environmentally induced be named!  This leads to the 
ridiculous  situation where the name given to an *individual* might change 
over its life: "Well, last year it was var. altus, but we've had a drought 
this year so now it's var. procumbens."

I am wrapping up a checklist of all names in world Campanulaceae and I 
curse every European botanist of the past 150 years who felt compelled to 
create a plethora of var.'s, subvar.'s, formae and subformae in their 
flora.  I'd have been done two years ago if not for their provincialistic 
foolishness.

If I had my way, var. and f. would be written out of the Code.  All var.'s 
would be considered to have been published at subsp. rank (add "pro var." 
in formal bibliographic citations), and all formae would be considered 
validly published (so they can serve as basionyms if needed) but unranked.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Associate 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:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and 
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous