Re: Iris virginica 'Alba'

 

I do not think I would choose a Google search as a definitive answer to anything. If one goes to the American Iris Society "Alphabetical Iris Checklist 1939" one finds (Iris) virginca alba. attributed to Van Tubergen 1925. As you may note 1925 is not nowadays.  Taxonomic rules change and presently the requirement would be that a NEW taxon would have to be in an accepted taxonomical journal. But the majority of taxon have been published before this recent rule and depending on the authority; are accepted or not. You will find that not all botanical authorities agree, and many today pay no attention to forma. Sadly I believe you will discover that many of the Western botanists (USA, Great Britain) often ignore them. Those that do, usually do not care about gardeners. While others, (Eastern Europe, China) often relish these ranks. Unless you are publish a botanical ! monograph few botanists would find either treatment as a form or a cultivar offensive. It seems likely at the time of Tubergen the definitions of a botanical form and a cultivar would be not nearly as strict as they are for new names. 
 

I. virginica forma alba Van T.


Thank you - Google finds absolutely no mention of "iris virginica forma alba" or "iris virginica f alba", which makes it kind of hard to discover its existence. Do you happen to have the year of publication and the full catalog description? Also, the AIS wiki does list 'Virginica, Alba' as a cultivar name.
 

If there were no botanical description officially recorded, you may still use the botanical Latin to describe it as a form of virginica with no author. Despite a large tome of botanical rules of nomenclature I know of no rule that says you are in violation of the official code by doing so.


Forma is a taxon rank under the ICBN, so wouldn't you have to validly publish the name in a scientific journal nowdays?


Sean Z

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index