Same name variation

[ElieEstephane]

What does it mean when the subspecies of the species has the same name as the species? I've noticed that with many species but only parodia mammulosa ssp mammulosa and i think Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. horizonthalonius come to mind now. If it's meant to designate the original species why not only label the subspecies? I kind of feel it's a stupid question but i had to ask.
Thanks

[DaveW]

It's not a stupid question.

They could simply use the binomial (the two names, genus and species) to designate the type form, but some do key it out to all the lower levels used for the varieties or forms of the species listed under it. The type form actually retains the same specific name at all sub specific levels, though obviously we don't normally bother using them. Therefore your Parodia mammulosa could be written Parodia mammulosa ssp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma mamulosa and so on ad infinitum to whatever lower rank is required.

"In botany (zoology uses a different "Code" and only uses species and sub species)

For algae, fungi, plants, and their fossils, there is an indeterminate number of infraspecific ranks allowed below the level of species. The secondary ranks below the species rank are variety and forma, and more ranks can be made by using the prefix "sub" to make subspecies, subvariety, subforma. Very rarely even more forms are created, such as supersubspecies. Not all of these ranks need to be specified, for example, some authors prefer to divide plant species into subspecies, while others prefer to use varieties."

I suppose it has become a botanical tradition, usually in keys, to designate the type of the species to as many lower ranks as the subspecies varieties and forms of it in the key are listed below it. In general use of course we only list as many sub specific levels as are needed to distinguish another form from the type. As you realised if the plant bears the same specific name at all infraspecific levels it is the type form, which in normal use is just written as a binomial.

http://lepcurious.blogspot.co.uk/2015/1 ... ature.html

Edit: one reason for listing all the subspecific names is you could say have "Parodia mammulosa subsp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma inermis" if a spineless form was found, but even then it could simply be listed as "Parodia mammulosa forma inermis".

[ElieEstephane]

It's not a stupid question.

They could simply use the binomial (the two names, genus and species) to designate the type form, but some do key it out to all the lower levels used for the varieties or forms of the species listed under it. The type form actually retains the same specific name at all sub specific levels, though obviously we don't normally bother using them. Therefore your Parodia mammulosa could be written Parodia mammulosa ssp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma mamulosa and so on ad infinitum to whatever lower rank is required.

"In botany (zoology uses a different "Code" and only uses species and sub species)

For algae, fungi, plants, and their fossils, there is an indeterminate number of infraspecific ranks allowed below the level of species. The secondary ranks below the species rank are variety and forma, and more ranks can be made by using the prefix "sub" to make subspecies, subvariety, subforma. Very rarely even more forms are created, such as supersubspecies. Not all of these ranks need to be specified, for example, some authors prefer to divide plant species into subspecies, while others prefer to use varieties."

I suppose it has become a botanical tradition, usually in keys, to designate the type of the species to as many lower ranks as the subspecies varieties and forms of it in the key are listed below it. In general use of course we only list as many sub specific levels as are needed to distinguish another form from the type. As you realised if the plant bears the same specific name at all infraspecific levels it is the type form, which in normal use is just written as a binomial.

http://lepcurious.blogspot.co.uk/2015/1 ... ature.html

Edit: one reason for listing all the subspecific names is you could say have "Parodia mammulosa subsp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma inermis" if a spineless form was found, but even then it could simply be listed as "Parodia mammulosa forma inermis".

Always to the rescue. Thanks Dave!

[DaveW]

As said, you only usually find plants listed this way in botanical keys where the plant has a number of varieties or forms listed under it. Some listed as subspecies and maybe some at the lower ranks of variety or form. These days botany seems to be following zoology and using subspecies instead of variety. However you cannot change the present rank of variety to subspecies on a whim, it needs to be done by publication, just as you would publishing a new subspecies. Of course, though subspecies are now the fashion in botany, varieties and forms etc are still legal classifications under the Botanical Code.

"In plants, there are several levels below species that may be used. These infraspecific ranks are subspecies, variety, subvariety, forma and subforma. The last three are seldom used. In spite of there being a hierarchy, any taxon can be characterised by just using the trinomial (genus, species and infraspecies) with indication of the rank. Names must be unique within a species (that is, one cannot have a subspecies and variety in the same species with the same name but with different circumscriptions). With plants the rank must always be cited ? usually as an abbreviation - and is not italicised.

Eucalyptus globulus subsp. bicostata
Eucalyptus globulus var. compacta

Occasionally the hierarchy is included, but this is unnecessary to unambiguously define the taxon.
Leucochrysum albicans subsp. albicans var. tricolor (= Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor)."

Therefore, as said previously trinomials are all that need usually be used since "Parodia mammulosa subsp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma inermis" could simply be listed as "Parodia mammulosa forma inermis", leaving out all the intermediate ranks.

Again to follow the "Code" I should have put all the plant names in italics to be correct, but we seldom bother doing so on forums or plant labels, though usually do stick to the convention that the genus should be written with a capital letter and everything below that rank is written with a small letter, even if it is derived from a persons name. It used to be the custom in the old American Code to write a species named after a person with a capital letter, as you may still find in some old books, but this convention was dropped many years ago when the International Code was adopted since it could cause confusion between genera and species since people now know if it is capitalised it is a generic name, where if in lower case or a small letter it is a sub specific category.

See:-

http://splink.cria.org.br/docs/appendix_j.pdf

Another thing that often confuses we English speakers is that Latin uses gender for words:-

"Species names are essentially adjectival in nature and thus must agree with the gender of the generic name to which they are attached. This is reflected in the endings of the names. When a species is transferred from one genus to another, the ending of the species name may also have to be altered to agree with the new genus name."

That is why Notocactus mammulosus changes to Parodia mammulosa on the move to that genus

[ElieEstephane]

As said, you only usually find plants listed this way in botanical keys where the plant has a number of varieties or forms listed under it. Some listed as subspecies and maybe some at the lower ranks of variety or form. These days botany seems to be following zoology and using subspecies instead of variety. However you cannot change the present rank of variety to subspecies on a whim, it needs to be done by publication, just as you would publishing a new subspecies. Of course, though subspecies are now the fashion in botany, varieties and forms etc are still legal classifications under the Botanical Code.

"In plants, there are several levels below species that may be used. These infraspecific ranks are subspecies, variety, subvariety, forma and subforma. The last three are seldom used. In spite of there being a hierarchy, any taxon can be characterised by just using the trinomial (genus, species and infraspecies) with indication of the rank. Names must be unique within a species (that is, one cannot have a subspecies and variety in the same species with the same name but with different circumscriptions). With plants the rank must always be cited ? usually as an abbreviation - and is not italicised.

Eucalyptus globulus subsp. bicostata
Eucalyptus globulus var. compacta

Occasionally the hierarchy is included, but this is unnecessary to unambiguously define the taxon.
Leucochrysum albicans subsp. albicans var. tricolor (= Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor)."

Therefore, as said previously trinomials are all that need usually be used since "Parodia mammulosa subsp. mammulosa var. mammulosa forma inermis" could simply be listed as "Parodia mammulosa forma inermis", leaving out all the intermediate ranks.

Again to follow the "Code" I should have put all the plant names in italics to be correct, but we seldom bother doing so on forums or plant labels, though usually do stick to the convention that the genus should be written with a capital letter and everything below that rank is written with a small letter, even if it is derived from a persons name. It used to be the custom in the old American Code to write a species named after a person with a capital letter, as you may still find in some old books, but this convention was dropped many years ago when the International Code was adopted since it could cause confusion between genera and species since people now know if it is capitalised it is a generic name, where if in lower case or a small letter it is a sub specific category.

See:-

http://splink.cria.org.br/docs/appendix_j.pdf

Another thing that often confuses we English speakers is that Latin uses gender for words:-

"Species names are essentially adjectival in nature and thus must agree with the gender of the generic name to which they are attached. This is reflected in the endings of the names. When a species is transferred from one genus to another, the ending of the species name may also have to be altered to agree with the new genus name."

That is why Notocactus mammulosus changes to Parodia mammulosa on the move to that genus

When it's explained like this it seems to be quite easy. I jsed ti always get confused between the ranks and what comes first.
One question though... i've seen the species ommitted in favor of thr subspecies and somehow labelled as its own species. Is that valid? Following your example parodia mammullosa subsp. abcd is listed parodia abcd. How correct is that? I've seen it mostly on seed sites.

[7george]

Following your example parodia mammullosa subsp. abcd is listed parodia abcd. How correct is that? I've seen it mostly on seed sites.

It's a synonymic labeling. Some authors consider that group of plants as a separate species, some others - as a subspecies. Seed traders tend to raise the rank of offered taxons of seed to increase their value and thus boost the sales. Or just follow an older nomenclature.

[ElieEstephane]

Following your example parodia mammullosa subsp. abcd is listed parodia abcd. How correct is that? I've seen it mostly on seed sites.

It's a synonymic labeling. Some authors consider that group of plants as a separate species, some others - as a subspecies. Seed traders tend to raise the rank of offered taxons of seed to increase their value and thus boost the sales. Or just follow an older nomenclature.

Thanks George! All is clear now.

[DaveW]

As George says, dealers often label plants according to what sells best. There is a commercial advantage to being a "splitter" since you can sell what the "lumper" would consider broadly the same plant to the customer twice under different names. However whether they are the same or different is always a matter of opinion and few of us go along with "ultralumping" where so many visibly different plants are simply reduced to synonymy. Classification after all is supposed to be an aid in identifying species.

Also many collectors do not like buying plants without names, so often dealers assign them provisional names (nomina nuda or invalid names) before they are legally published, that is if they ever do get published. You will also sometimes get the locality data confused as a specific name, say what should be Gymnocalycium sp. Famatina or Gymnocalycium Famatina listed as Gymnocalycium famatina as though it is a valid species.

Not all provisional names do get published. As an example the provisionally named Lophophora viridis was eventually validly published as Lophophora koehresii. I believe also Turbinicarpus andersonii went around as Turbinicarpus panarottoi before being validly published as T. andersonii, therefore provisional names are not always taken up, but sometimes both names will appear in dealers catalogue as though they are different species.

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/TURBIN ... rsonii.htm

You even get misreads of names on labels being perpetuated in dealers lists. For instance the name Turbinicarpus lilinkeuiduus was said to originate from a misread of a badly written label in an American collection for T. klinkerianus, which it actually is. Both often appearing together in plant and seed lists as though they are separate species. I saw one dealer recently offering "Neoporteria subglobosa", obviously a miswrite for N. subgibbosa.