On 14 Jun 2010, at 10:18, Donald Barnett wrote: > Taxonomy question: if a species of plant is of hybrid origin and the plants are > producing true uniform plants from seed production would it still be considered > a hybrid or its own species? In the location of such hybrids they make up 95% or > more of the plants in the area and one of the parents is no longer found there. > Any help would be much appreciated. Supposing the parents are Veriolitsis glomulama and Veriolitsis picasa, you would first refer to the hybrids as Veriolitsis glomulama × picasa. When a valid botanical description and name for this hybrid have been published, say, Veriolitsis × barnettiana, you could then refer to it by that name. It would be necessary to search the literature first, to be sure that no one has already assigned a name to this hybrid. However, before you do that, you really need to publish a reasonably scholarly article demonstrating that the population you are interested in is truly of hybrid origin. In the absence of one of the putative parents, this may be trickier to do than you might think. The assignment of a name to the hybrid can then be relegated to an appendix. It's important to note that the "×" is not actually part of the botanical name. The key elements in a botanical name are simply a Latinate generic epithet and a Latinate specific epithet. Further, also remember that valid publication of a botanical name in no way obligates anyone to use that name. Botanical naming is a matter of opinion, not legislation. It is only over time that a name establishes itself in general use by consensus. The court of public opinion, you might say. Incidentally, it's not at all clear that a hybrid taxon has to produce uniform plants from seed. The hybridity is simply a fact regarding the parentage. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Maritime Zone 8, a cool Mediterranean climate on beautiful Vancouver Island http://maps.google.ca/maps/…