var. or f.

[Curtis Clark]

On 2005-11-08 07:04, Thomas G. Lammers wrote:
> 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.

I agree.

> 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."

E. L. Greene may very well have done that with *species* in Ceanothus
and Eschscholzia.

> 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.

This makes sense to me, except that species with both subspp and vars
could present problems with typification and homonymy.

--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062