Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread to help me figure this out. I greatly appreciated reading the Peter Boyce article from The Plantsman and looking at all the leaf variations. In this article he includes subsp. neglectum with subsp. italicum under subsp. italicum . What I guess is still a little puzzling is where Arum concinnatum fits since it sounds like the cultivar Arum italicum 'Marmoratum' or Arum italium subsp. italicum 'Marmoratum' is not the same thing as Arum concinnatum (syn. Arum italicum var. marmoratum). Since Giorgio's pictures: http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/… are wild forms, they wouldn't be named cultivars so I've written it on the wiki following John Grimshaw's suggestion that this is a group referred to in Italy as 'marmoratum'. I've not capitalized it, but do I need to use quotes to convey the correct meaning? The article from Peter Boyce only mentions the two subspecies he suggests uniting. What about the subspecies pictured by Arnold, albispathum ? It is still listed by Kew. How is it different? Can anyone tell me anything about it that can be added to the wiki? Would all the other pictures on the wiki be considered Arum italicum subsp. italicum or can I just leave them as Arum italicum? I've read explanations a couple of times about the difference between species and subspecies and at the time I think I understand, but then later when I think about it I can't remember. 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. Thanks again to everyone. Mary Sue