May I help? Perhaps my German is a bit better.
>(...) So what is
>the recommended or scientific (or best non-scientific) way to retain
>the "form" when labelling the plant - or does one just drop the
>form/sub-species and not care?
Some names of "splitoffs" of _P.moranensis_ s.l. are valid. So you can use
these. Valid names in _P.sect.Orcheosanthus_:
_P.gypsicola_ (very distinct)
_P.moranensis_
_P.caudata_ (valid but included in _P.moranensis_ by CASPER)
_P.zecheri_
_P.potosiensis_
_P.rectifolia_
_P.colimensis_ (rather distinct, transient between this and
_P.sect.crassifolia_: cf. _P.cyclosecta_)
_P.macrophylla_
_P.oblongiloba_ (the last two constitute a rather separate group with long
petioles to the summer leaves; _P.crassifolia_ of
_P.subsect.longitubus_ is very closely related to these)
a section (rather a subsection of _P.sect.Orcheosanthus_) has been defined
by SPETA & FUCHS , viz. _P.sect.Crassifolia_:
_P.esseriana_
_P.jaumavensis_ (certainly not specifically distinct from _P.esseriana_)
_P.ehlersiae_
_P.cyclosecta_ (does possibly belong to this rather than
_P.sect.Orcheosanthus_ s.str.; this species has been
introduced into cultivation in
1994! All plants cultivated under this name until this date are
*NOT* _P.cyclosecta_ but rather one of the foregoing)
_P.debbertiana_ (was placed in this group by SPETA & FUCHS but it is rather
transient between this and the _P.kondoi_/_P.reticulata_
complex, which is until now placed in another subgenus:
_Isoloba_!)
A subsection related to the _P.macrophylla_-group was described by RUIZ &
RZEDOWSKI, viz. _P.subsect.longitubus_:
_P.laueana_
_P.hemiepiphytica_ (probably identical with _P.laueana_)
_P.crassifolia_
_P.utricularioides_ (doubtfully belonging to this group)
Some names are very popular among horticulturists but should be omitted
under all circumstances because their recent application does in all
probability not correspond to the original descriptions:
P.flos-mulionis nomen dubium/confusum = _P.moranensis_ s.l.
P.orchidioides nomen dubium/ambiguum rejicendum =
_P.macrophylla_/_P.moranensis_ s.l.
P.mexicana nomen illegitimum (superfluum) = _P.moranensis_ s.str.
An invalid name dispersed together with plants is "P.coelestis".
ZAMUDIO-RUIZ is "preparing" a protologue for this one. So I am waiting (I
really *love* nomina nuda!)...
For unnamed, invalidly named, or insufficiently identified specimens, you
should use the name:
_P.moranensis_ s.l., or if they are "markedly" (specifically?) different
but still not identified otherwise:
_P.cf.moranensis_, or _P.cf._ and any of the valid epithets cited above.
Additional comments may be included. I would propose inclusion in (), in
order to prevent confusion with cultivar names which must be included in
single quotes.
e.g. _P.zecheri_ (Jalapa)
If you do not want to lose information, you should number all clones and
store all respective information in a diary. From time to time, you should
check your plants if you can identify them correctly (e.g. when they are in
flower). However, as the complex is poorly understood (and even more poorly
described) sometimes only a "_P.cf...." will be the result.
Kind regards
Jan