Premium
Current practice in the use of subspecies, variety, and forma in the classification of wild plants
Author(s) -
Hamilton Clement W.,
Reichard Sarah H.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.2307/1222819
Subject(s) - subspecies , taxon , biology , variety (cybernetics) , phylogenetic tree , taxonomy (biology) , nomenclature , zoology , evolutionary biology , ecology , artificial intelligence , computer science , genetics , gene
Summary Hamilton, C. W. & Reichard, S. H.: Current practice in the use of subspecies, variety, and forma in the classification of wild plants. — Taxon 41: 485–498. 1992. — ISSN 0040‐0262. Infraspecific classification of plants continues to be practiced commonly by taxonomists: c. 8 % of species monographed in 26 major journals and series during the period 1987–1990 were subdivided. Of those, c. 42 % were divided into subspecies only, 52 % into varieties, 3 % into formae, and 3 % into taxa of more than one level. Subspecies and varieties are usually defined as requiring some integrity — geographic, ecologic, and/or phylogenetic — beyond the morphological. Despite some attempts to differentiate between subspecies and variety, they are largely equivalent in practice. European taxonomists tend to favor subspecies, whereas their counterparts in the United States usually employ variety. Formae usually are defined as lacking any extramorphological integrity. Given the general inconsistency of practice found, it is imperative that more authors state briefly their philosophy of infraspecific taxonomy so their classifications may be interpreted more clearly. Taxonomists collectively should promote greater standardization of infraspecific classification.