On 30 Mar 2015, at 9:25, penstemon wrote: > This "pentaploid species" is a clone, and in that respect no more deserving > of a distinct botanical name than any of the familiar garden tulips. Many plants were first described (and named) from single clones. This is particularly true wrt Chinese plants, as many were first described from cultivated forms bought from Chinese nurserymen in the years before China was forced to let Europeans wander about the country. Kerria japonica is an example. It was originally described from the common double flowered clone, even though its flowers are so doubled that no one could tell what plant family it belonged in. (Later discovery of the wild single- flowered form showed it is in the Rosaceae.) Indeed, the whole system of botanical names rests on the concept of type specimens, single specimens that are authoritative examples of their respective taxons. It doesn't care what the ploidy of those specimens is. Mess ensues when the type specimen is unrepresentative of the taxon as a whole, but that's the way the system works. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Z. 7-8, cool Mediterranean climate