Ken, Think of your fingers (as species) at the end of your hand (as genus), which is part of your arm (family). Now think of the variety as your fingernail; they are all connected and arise from the same point, but are related. But yet they are entities themselves. You can call the parts what you will but that does not change what they are. Currently, the trend is to accept uncertain relationships of closely related species/subspecies as a complex. It looks better to have "cleaned up" groups (i.e. genera/subgenera and species) w/ a few "untidy" subgroups, which can be cleaned up later. Taxonomy can break things down into groups of forms, varieties, and/ subspecies and they may be named. If there are unique individuals unlike the rest, they may be selected for and given a cultivar name, in certain cases (when bred and selected for, rarely a unique individual may be picked out of nature and given a c.v. name). In nature we can see individuals (in most cases) and think of groups of them as forms and ecotypes, varieties, and, collectively, subspecies and species. The plant name game is different in the trade vs. the scientific end. In the trade names are often manipulated to generate new plants for sales, where in science these manipulation of names is occasionally for accreditation of the taxonomist, which is a result of the ego, not science unfortunately. In most cases, both believe they are doing it in the best interest of, well, whatever. Sometimes a nametag is just hung on a plant because it is different, even though it is part of a recognized group. In taxonomy a "...." is used indicate an uncertain relationship of that entity; in horticulture these plants are tossed around and traded under various names, of course. Hopefully, this makes things a little more clear about the naming aspect. Kevin D. Preuss http://web.tampabay.rr.com/griffinialand/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Hixson" <khixson@nu-world.com> To: "diana chapman" <rarebulbs@earthlink.net>; "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [pbs] L. pitkinense > Hi, Diana > >I stand corrected on L. pardalinum ssp. giganteum - I was going on what the > >USDA said. They would not let me sell it without a CITES certificate, and > >confiscated an overseas order, insisting it was L. pitkinense. > The problem is with the botanists, not the gardeners/nurseryman. > They have trouble defining just what L. pardalinum is and is not, in a very > variable species. I sympathise with that, but don't always agree with the > conclusions that their definition forces on other people. For instance, I > can't > comprehend how L. wigginsii could be considered a subspecies of L. pardalinum. > The purpose of a plant name is to identify a specific plant so everyone > understands just which plant is being discussed/offered for sale/being > purchased. > Given the problems with botanists, the solution may be to give cultivar or > clone > names to some of the variants, which aren't under the province of the USDA, > etc. > L pardalinum "giganteum" was also at one time called the Sunset lily. > I don't know if that would be an acceptable cultivar name, but something > similiar could probably be found. If growing from seed, a "grex" or strain > name could be used. > The beaurocracy is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves-and > sometimes the rules they use seem incomprehensible to those being "protected". > Ken > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >