A "Form" is the same as a species---except it has a pimple, a hangnail, or a runny nose.  Now that's easy, isn't it!
      Art


--
PLEASE NOTE: My new, long-term, and correct email address is: [log in to unmask] Please update your records!

---- Pete Krull <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Final observation: some posters write about "describing species and forms"
> as though that was the same process.  Again -- the point made by so many
> before me: "forms," as infrasubspecific entities, are not covered by the
> rules of the ICZN and do not enter into formal zoological nomenclature.  I
> suppose there really are no rules regarding naming "forms" -- caveat emptor"
>
>
>
> My thought on this is that shells often described as new species or
> subspecies often turn out to be just forms of other species. The reverse of
> that could certainly be true as well, especially in the realm of land shells
> where even the genus is often changed when new research is done. Therefore I
> don't think we can completely disassociate the naming of forms from the
> naming of species even though the ICZN does not recognize forms. Shouldn't
> anyone naming a "form"  be as diligent as someone naming a species just in
> case it's later determined that the form is a separate species? Pete K
>
>
>
>  .
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------