In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

There are a lot of variations in the names, but the first two are
always genus and species, and then subspecies, variety, tribe and other
arcane distinctions.

Tribe and subtribe are the next formal ranks up from genus.

Oops. Thanks for the correction. My memory is failing :-(

To clarify further (for the original poster) a botanical name is

Genus species [subsp. subspecies] [var.variety] [f. form
[subf. subform] [(original author - at a different rank, or in a
different genus)] author

(I haven't seen any occurrences of subvarieties.)

Er, yes, but (a) that is only the current, official scheme. There
have been slightly different schemes in the past, almost certainly
will be in the future, not all authorities follow the rules in
unusual cases, and the scheme doesn't match reality anyway!

I have never found out how the more dogmatic taxonomists[*] claim that
the difference between genetic, environmental and developmental forms
should be described. And, as you know, all can occur in nature.
I am thinking of plants that reproduce vegetatively, which can
change form permanently or semi-permanently for those reasons.

And God alone knows how one should classify lichen and similar
entities - though I know how it is done :-)

My general point here is that it isn't worth being too dogmatic,
and even bothering about absolute precision, as it doesn't always
make taxonomic sense. Forcing one structure into a more rigid and
inappropriate one always produces more confusion than it removes.
This is VERY relevant for the weird collection of forms that make
up the things described as garden varieties.
[*] The sane ones tend to say "That needs discussing over a drink;
shall we adjourn to the Trug and Dibber?"


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.