The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. On the other hand, the suggestion of a strictly phylogenetic nomenclature consisting of a formal, albeit rank-free, classification system with named but unranked uninomials (Mishler Our focus here is on assessing the nature and utility of infraspecific ranks and naming of sterile hybrids. We first build upon work by Hamilton and Reichard (1992) and McDade (1995), and examine the use of infraspecific ranks and hybrids in several classic and contemporary NorthAmerican regional floristic treatments. We then explore in more detail the confusion generated by the proliferation of infraspecific designations through a case study of the genus SarraceniaLinnaeus (Sarraceniaceae), the Western Hemisphere pitcher plants. Our analysis and case study reinforce several recommendations previously articulated by other systematists and evolutionary biologists, but also provide additional considerations based on our experiences working with this group of plants, which exhibits marked levels of local phenotypic variation that has been recognized taxonomically. Hoagland (2013), rapid description often precludes inclusion of detailed morphologic, genetic, or phylogenetic information, thus making it difficult to test the hypothesis that a new entity described from only a small number of herbarium specimens is, in fact, a defensible new taxon.
Infraspecific Ranks and Hybrids in Past andThus, we gently suggest that botanists be more circumspect in identifying infraspecific taxa and that the requirements for recognition of a new species be more stringent. We elaborate on these ideas using a case-study of a small genus we know well: the North American pitcher plants in the Sarracenia: A Case Study-The carnivorous plant genus Sarracenia (Fig. 1) offers an ideal case study illustrating the taxonomic confusion that affects researchers studying the ecology, evolution, and natural history of the genus as well as regulatory agencies charged with protecting endangered Sarracenia species. The two most current treatments of the genuspublished within 18 months of each other-disagree in many respects ( America and a number of putative naturally-occurring hybrids were observed and described (Table 4, Fig. 2; see reviews in McDaniel 1971; Bell 1949 Bell , 1952 Bell and Case 1956;Mellichamp and Case 2009;McPherson and Schnell 2011). Two taxa now recognized as hybrids, S ×catesbaei and S. ×swaniana, were originally described as species. Natural hybrids are now known for every named Sarracenia species except for S. oreophila (Table 4, sequence data also repeatedly demonstrates a lack of clear differentiation among recognized infraspecific taxa (Bayer et al. 1996;Godt and Hamrick 1996, 1999 As in many plant taxa, interspecific hybridization is also common in Sarracenia (Figure 2), and names for many hybrid taxa have been published (Table 4) Similarly, McDade (1995) reported that the most common infraspecific categories in bota...