John Grimshaw wrote: " If this term is as inaccurate as Jim McKenney seems to think, it is very curious that the world's botanists are perfectly happy to use it in their day to day work (without requiring any form of definition or rules for usage)." What's curious about that, John? I never questioned the word's utility, I questioned its logic. Aren't these the same botanists who for generations have used the ranks Varietas, Forma (and even subdivisions of those) in their naming conventions? Aren't these at least in part the same botanists who have been "perfectly happy" to contentedly wallow in this illogical scheme? In fact, aren't these at least in part the same botanists who over and over have shot first and asked questions later by assigning new taxa to a particular rank before data supporting such a decision were available? If they are indeed "perfectly happy", perhaps it's because there is so little for which they have to answer. Jim McKenney