Mary Sue wrote: ". So I must still be confused about whether when there are subspecies they are considered different from the species which can still stand alone or whether when there are subspecies all of the plants are supposed to be divided into the subspecies if you can figure it out." If I understand you question, I think I can help out a bit here. You have to keep in mind that there are really two completely different things going on here. One is the process of determining the rank of the entities in question - i.e. answering the questions "is it a species?" "is it a subspecies? "is it something else?". One appeals to science to answer this question. The other thing going on follows once the issue above is answered. That second thing answers the question "what is the correct name for this entity?" One appeals to the international rules of nomenclature to answer this question. Because science rarely provides an unambiguous answer to the first question, it follows that there will be varied applications of the rules in pursuit of the answer to the second question. The rules of nomenclature are, if not cast in stone, at least printed on paper for everyone to read and understand. Provided that everyone starts with the same assumptions, the conclusions reached should be similar if not identical. For the first process alluded to above, the process of determining rank, there are no codified rules; the whole process is based on an arcane, ever shifting body of knowledge. In fact, speaking broadly, we're at crossroads in terms of where those sands are shifting. Traditional taxonomy based on morphology is slowly being marginalized by DNA studies. Now, with that in mind, let's look at the question Mary Sue asked. In particular, let's focus on the part about "whether when there are subspecies they are considered different from the species". Perhaps I misunderstand what Mary Sue is asking here, but as I read her question it suggests that she, as so many non-systematists do, is confusing the form, the appearance of the name, with what that name expresses about the relationship of the entities named. Here's what I mean. For purposes of discussion, let's use the genus Crocus and in particular the species Crocus kotschyanus as described by Mathew in his work The Crocus. He assigns four subspecies to Crocus kotschyanus: kotschyanus, suworowianus, cappadocicus and hakkariensis. Because of the way the rules of nomenclature work, one of those subspecies has to be named kotschyanus. We would write these names Crocus kotschyanus subsp. kotschyanus, Crocus kotschyanus subsp. suworowianus, Crocus kotschyanus subsp. hakkariensis and Crocus kotschyanus subsp. cappadocicus. As gardeners, we typically shorten the written forms to Crocus kotschyanus kotschyanus, C. kotschyanus suworowianus and so on. When the name is written Crocus kotschyanus suworowianus, common sense (which in this case is misleading) prompts people to say that "suworowianus is a form of kotschyanus". That is true, but not in the sense which most people seem to mean it. You have to keep in mind that it is equally true to say that "kotschyanus is a form of kotschyanus". If for instance you want the plant known as Crocus kotschyanus kotschyanus, and you order simply Crocus kotschyanus, you have no grounds to complain if your supplier sends you any of the four subspecies: each is equally Crocus kotschyanus. (But who among us would complain about getting the subspecies suworowianus when we thought we would be getting subspecies kotschyanus?) How often have you heard gardeners say "I want the pure species, not one of the varieties" or something like that? When I hear someone say something like that, it suggests to me that they do not know what they are talking about. If the "varieties" in question are other subspecies of coordinate rank with the subspecies whose name matches the name of the species, then those other subspecies have equal claim on the specific epithet. I suppose that what those in pursuit of the "pure species" mean is that they want the subspecies whose name matches that of the species. But that subspecies is no "purer" than any of the other subspecies. Don't be fooled by the way the names are written - that's not English you're reading. In the Crocus example, subspecies suworowianus is "pure" Crocus kotschyanus, subspecies hakkariensis is "pure" Crocus kotschyanus, subspecies cappadocicus is "pure" Crocus kotschyanus, and yes, subspecies kotschyanus is "pure" Crocus kotschyanus. Mary Sue, does that address your question? A little voice is telling me "Jim, you made it worse!" I hope not. Jim McKenney jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where I'm in deep denial because two inches of snow are predicted for tonight. My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/