I think I shall stick to my decidedly amateur interest in recording identifiable forms...regardless of whether they be species, semi-species or sub species.
This is probably the ideal approach to take, you could find yourself inadvertently contributing to the wider taxonomic debates through rigorous fieldwork and dilligent recording!
Accept that many will have to be left at showing characteristics of...possibly of eastern origin... etc
While I accept that a fair number of individuals can never be pinned down, especilly those in which relationships are obviously clinal I'm not sure about the continued validity of the notion of 'showing characters of', at least not in many cases. Where clinally related forms are dealt with I prefer 'tending towards x or x etc...'
'Showing characters of...' sometimes seems a bit like code for 'yes it was one but I'll refrain from stating it so bluntly'!. Where does it leave us when something is split? Does it then translate to 'looked a bit like' or 'it was one, but only because it's been elevated to species status now'?
Spud
Last edited: