Paph godefroyae fma. leucochilum OR Paph. leucochilum???

[Rick]

Of course you may ask. The problem is that we follow a set of rules called "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature". That set of rules gives us a way to "standardize" descriptions and naming but does not (and never will .. but about that later) give any guidelines of what is to be considered a "biological" criterion fit to be used to deliniate any entity at any taxonomic level. A famous biologist (It think it way Mayr .. if I remember correctly) once said " a species within the plant world is that what a competent botanist describes as such."
Thus there are NO rules except "common sense" (whatever that may be) for deciding : species, subspecies, variety, form ... and if someone considers leucochilum a good autonomous species (I do not) then one must simply ask : is that common sense .... and to consider a species on the colour of a pouch ALONE is (in my view) not very common sence. For example, Masdevallia coccinea comes in red, yellow and white ... so if one would consider flower colour to be a good marker at the species level in orchid taxonomy, we would have to describe all three colour forms as different species.

Now comes the tricky point of my posting (and I will be scolded and flamed for it): the other problem of taxonomy is that ANYONE can publicize ANYTHING as long as he/she finds a journal to do so ... Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Peer Review .. it simply has to do with "professional training" ... (And this is not saying that we botanist do not make mistakes).
But would you have your appendix taken out by a baker? a lawyer? an architect?

Period of blooming: that differs geographically ...
Pollinator: there may be several ... and that would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
hair on the pouch or some organ ... that varies
staminodal shield ... is a good marker within SOME groups

But then again, how much "different" is "enough" and how many criteria must be given ....

The species definition in animals is simple and straight forward (when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, it is a good species) , but in plants there is no definition that works .....

I'm glad you brought this these ideas up Dr. Braem as they reinforce topics I've brought up in several other identification threads.

I would agree that pollinator studies are difficult (and very expensive to conduct in foreign countries), but they are not impossible.

And yes you can have more than 1 pollinator. I have a very good paper by Hans Banziger (2005) that identified the pollinators of Cyp. guttatum, and how these same pollinators could not pollinate C. flavum and C. yunannanense even though they would enter the flowers of these sympatric species.

Whether by pollinator study or metrics based, the question of "how much or many" still ends up in the forefront, and keeps pushing for a statistical solution. I know that some taxonomists have tried cranking ANOVA based statistics on large data bases of either structural or genetic metrics to look for "statistically significant" differences between species.

I work in environmental toxicology and live with similar debates every day as to how big an effect is a "real" effect or impact. You end up with a lot of different answers (often depending on who puts the most $$ in the argument). But there is a general convergence on a 20%-25% percent effect as being a "biologically real" effect.

This works for things that can be measured but how can you quantify a metric like color?

 

[poozcard]

Hi Rick,

for color, I think with the present technology we can already measure it as the digital camera can compute the white balance.
We can use a camera taking picture of the flower then we know each single pixel contains how much red, green and blue.

Thanks for sharing.

:wink::wink::wink:

 

[SlipperFan]

Unfortunately, white balance is not perfect, and differs somewhat with different cameras.

 

[poozcard]

Unfortunately, white balance is not perfect, and differs somewhat with different cameras.

sure it differs
then we may have to use the specific calibrated one

:clap::clap:

 

[Rick]

Chasing after metrics still generally defies the concept of a species which is a self sustaining population of genetically similar organisms which are genetically isolated from other populations. There are other ways to paraphrase this concept that usually says something along the lines of a species is a genetically isolated population of organisms that cannot interbreed with other species (recently modified to "naturally occurring populations" since intergeneric crosses are viable in artificial culture).

This is why I bring up the use of pollination studies as a tool for separating species into successful breeding populations of organisms. If an orchid cannot maintain genetic integrity in natural sexual reproduction, then it cannot maintain a species status (let the bugs decide!!).

Granted it can be very expensive, time consuming, and, in some countries, very dangerous to conduct this type of study. Certainly, in comparison to taking a flower apart in a lab. There is still a good correlation to flower morphometrics and a species concept, but unlike days gone by it needs to be done on a statistical representation of an entire population of the species and not just the one or two great flowers that caught someones attention in the field.

As an engineer you came up with a great solution to quantify color, but how would you handle albino, melanistic, leucistic,.......color forms of the same species? How many more metrics do you add to get enough dimensions to get a true genetic separation. And then there are spatial and temporal aspects of organisms in the wild that contribute to their ability to remain genetically distinct. Those are metrics that still require reliable field data.

One of the newest twists I recently read was that some very similar looking bulbophylums emit different odors to attract a different set of pollinators. Now you have an olfactory dimension to add to the ANOVA!

The switch to DNA may be the most promising lab method to settle species concepts, but there are just as many arguments over what genes to target, and the original problem with standard metrics, how much difference is a significant difference?

So going full circle, the bugs and plants are smarter than we are, so ask the bugs what they think?

 

[Braem]

Hi Rick,

for color, I think with the present technology we can already measure it as the digital camera can compute the white balance.
We can use a camera taking picture of the flower then we know each single pixel contains how much red, green and blue.

Thanks for sharing.

:wink::wink::wink:

But that is not the point. The point is that flower colour is variable in species and therefore flower cannot be used to deliniate any taxonomic level.

 

[Braem]

Chasing after metrics still generally defies the concept of a species which is a self sustaining population of genetically similar organisms which are genetically isolated from other populations. There are other ways to paraphrase this concept that usually says something along the lines of a species is a genetically isolated population of organisms that cannot interbreed with other species (recently modified to "naturally occurring populations" since intergeneric crosses are viable in artificial culture).

This is why I bring up the use of pollination studies as a tool for separating species into successful breeding populations of organisms. If an orchid cannot maintain genetic integrity in natural sexual reproduction, then it cannot maintain a species status (let the bugs decide!!).

Granted it can be very expensive, time consuming, and, in some countries, very dangerous to conduct this type of study. Certainly, in comparison to taking a flower apart in a lab. There is still a good correlation to flower morphometrics and a species concept, but unlike days gone by it needs to be done on a statistical representation of an entire population of the species and not just the one or two great flowers that caught someones attention in the field.

As an engineer you came up with a great solution to quantify color, but how would you handle albino, melanistic, leucistic,.......color forms of the same species? How many more metrics do you add to get enough dimensions to get a true genetic separation. And then there are spatial and temporal aspects of organisms in the wild that contribute to their ability to remain genetically distinct. Those are metrics that still require reliable field data.

One of the newest twists I recently read was that some very similar looking bulbophylums emit different odors to attract a different set of pollinators. Now you have an olfactory dimension to add to the ANOVA!

The switch to DNA may be the most promising lab method to settle species concepts, but there are just as many arguments over what genes to target, and the original problem with standard metrics, how much difference is a significant difference?

So going full circle, the bugs and plants are smarter than we are, so ask the bugs what they think?

The DNA issue is amusing ... DNA testing is to be done in a lab ... therefore field work is no longer possible ... and DNA fingerprinting is not usefull at the species level or thereunder. (And please don't start comparing with animals and humans).

 

[Ricky]

... the other problem of taxonomy is that ANYONE can publicize ANYTHING as long as he/she finds a journal to do so ...

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh, you speak from my heart! I hate to see this inflation of vars and formas, especially at the Phalaenopsis section. Seems that each taxonomist feel compelled to describe as many new (sub)species as possible.

 

[Braem]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh, you speak from my heart! I hate to see this inflation of vars and formas, especially at the Phalaenopsis section. Seems that each taxonomist feel compelled to describe as many new (sub)species as possible.

If you go by the DNA analysis, you can describe anything as anything ... The method works at higher level but not at the species level or below .... And if the day comes that I need a lab to difefrentiate between a Paph and a Phrag, or when I start considereing Cattleya to be Sophronitis, I will stop doing botany.

 

[SlipperFan]

If you go by the DNA analysis, you can describe anything as anything ... The method works at higher level but not at the species level or below .... And if the day comes that I need a lab to difefrentiate between a Paph and a Phrag, or when I start considereing Cattleya to be Sophronitis, I will stop doing botany.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Rick]

The DNA issue is amusing ... DNA testing is to be done in a lab ... therefore field work is no longer possible ... and DNA fingerprinting is not usefull at the species level or thereunder. (And please don't start comparing with animals and humans).

Whether you take apart a flower under a disecting scope and measure/photograph the parts, or take apart the flower DNAmolecules the importance of field work and lab work is the same.

Unfortunately I see too many taxonomic studies both DNA and metrics based that are inadequately supported by field population data.

How many plants are named from single specimens collected in the 1800-early 1900's that have fraudulent local data?

There is still controversy over the name of a slipper from New Guinea that was named from a picture of a drawing of a single flower observed in the late
1800's. Can we scrap that one and do some real science?

 

[Brian Monk]

Using DNA analysis alone to describe populations at the species level is the most irritating thing to me in all of botany. New methods are not necessarily better methods, and the poor contextualization of most DNA analyses leaves more qestions than answers. Data is data, and must be considered in the light of ALL of the other data. DNA is useful, bt no more so than basing Paph groups on leaf color and mottling (remember delenatii, the brachypetalum?).

 

[Braem]

Whether you take apart a flower under a disecting scope and measure/photograph the parts, or take apart the flower DNAmolecules the importance of field work and lab work is the same.

Unfortunately I see too many taxonomic studies both DNA and metrics based that are inadequately supported by field population data.

How many plants are named from single specimens collected in the 1800-early 1900's that have fraudulent local data?

There is still controversy over the name of a slipper from New Guinea that was named from a picture of a drawing of a single flower observed in the late
1800's. Can we scrap that one and do some real science?

No we can't ... because the rules of taxonomy do not allow us to do that. Once a plant has been validly and effectivel described according to the rules, it remains as described for all eternity ... The drawing by the way showed the entire plant (it is by Blume) ...it is Paph. glanduliferum ...
The problem here is that the drawing even shows details of the staminodal shield ... but no plant has ever been found again with that kind of staminodal shield ....

There is another problem like that floating around .. Paph. elliottianum ...
It is all explained (at length) in my books.

And yes we need field work, not lab work. I have shown in several publications (and others did so also) that the DNA work at the species level (fr example by Cox et al for Paphiopedilum) is nonsense. ... But as long as zillions of Euros and Dollars are given to thoese "scientists" ... what can we do?

 

[Braem]

Using DNA analysis alone to describe populations at the species level is the most irritating thing to me in all of botany. New methods are not necessarily better methods, and the poor contextualization of most DNA analyses leaves more qestions than answers. Data is data, and must be considered in the light of ALL of the other data. DNA is useful, bt no more so than basing Paph groups on leaf color and mottling (remember delenatii, the brachypetalum?).

YES!!!!!

 

[poozcard]

It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.

 

[Braem]

It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.

I fully agree ...

 

[Marc]

It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.

Nice analogy

 

[Brian Monk]

It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rollhappy:

 

[poozcard]

Good morning everyone,

My friend in Krabi asked me to share this.
The pictures are taken by my friend Khun A.
He did a homemade research and would like me to share.

The intention is just to share how P.godefroyae from west coast and adjacent island of Krabi to Phangna looks. (only from his collection )

The weak is My friend and I have limited no. of east coast godefroyae.

What he has found are..
1. There are differences in pouch
2. There are some common in having hair at upper edge of staminode.

I am not sure it is proper or not to post here, but I have verbal permit from him.
If it is inappropriate please advise, I will quickly delete them.

This is his growing space. Most of them are exul/godefroyae(West coast)/Niveum/Thaianum.

After 2 weeks of reading this topic, I know this might not be a relevant evidence for classification but it is something general that you may also found after seen a lot of flowers for a while.

 

[poozcard]

1st specimen is from Koh Kai (an island on east coast, Andaman sea)

Most of plant from this island has yellow to cream color.
White color is rare to find.

At the upper edge of staminode, there is covered by hairs.
the shape is more widen horizontally.