Any non-aggressive folks interested in discussing taxonomy?

Discussion in 'Codex taxinomiae plantarum (CTP)' started by VAAlbert, Feb 17, 2009.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Feb 21, 2009 #61

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    I do understand what you mean about the flies. It's just in pollination ecology, people talk about bees as being more intelligent and choosy than flies in terms of the flowers they visit. The euglossine bees can also be generalists, however, in the sense that they can 'capture' pollinia of multiple orchid species on the same fly, stuck however on different parts of their body, due to the specific morphologies/anatomies of different species.

    I think the central issue is that the Paph species are largely allopatric in distribution, and so different fly species are not much involved in 'choices', other than what can actually fit through the floral 'devices' to effect pollination. 'Sophisticated' attracting systems such as the distinct staminodia of Paph rothschildianum may well separate its pollination from other species that are more-or-less sympatric, however (such as P. dayanum; though these plants aren't really sympatric in the sense that they grow directly next to P. rothschildianum populations!). I think, though, that if you look at most Paphs, they exist in substantial allopatry, and the fly species probably don't make much of a difference other than mechanical possibility due to their size and shape, etc.

    But, I natter on, and probably contradict myself in places above...

    Just my 2 cents again.

    Specificity seems to be a matter of defition.

    All best,

    vic.
     
  2. Feb 21, 2009 #62

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    ... not fly, bee
     
  3. Feb 21, 2009 #63

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    I should add a caveat. I would bet there is a correlation between flower size and exit orifice dimensions.
     
  4. Feb 22, 2009 #64

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    A call for participitaion in research!

    This information should be readily compilable if folks could start sending data that could go into an Excel spreadsheet and subsequently graphed.

    I strongly encourage members of Slippertalk to contribute toward testing this interesting hypothesis!
     
  5. Feb 22, 2009 #65

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Alright, lets hammer out the methods. We want everyone to be doing this the same way. I think the hardest part will be figuring out how to judge "flower size."
     
  6. Feb 23, 2009 #66

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Meanwhile, would be nice to start more discussion on taxonomy!

    Vic.
     
  7. Feb 23, 2009 #67

    labskaus

    labskaus

    labskaus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Germany
    a strictly nomenclatural but non-slipper question:

    Vandenberg transferred several ex Laelia/Sophronitis species into Cattleya based on yet unpublished new molecular data:van den Berg, C. 2008. New combinations in the genus Cattleya (Orchidaceae). Neodiversity 3: 3-12
    Available from his homepage, http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/publications.html

    My question: is this procedure of publishing new combinations in anticipation of new data (even though they are his own) in accordance with the Boanical Code? See Article 34.1 (b): http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

    As I understand the Code, Vandenbergs combinations may be not valid.

    Best wishes, Carsten
     
  8. Feb 23, 2009 #68

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    He can in fact publish those combinations whenever he likes, since the code requires no particular result whatsoever for somebody to validly transfer a species from one genus to another.

    For example, I could easily claim that I have evidence that Phrag schlimii is a Mexipedium, and go ahead and make the transfer -- without any data shown.

    To make it legal, all I'd have to do would be to make certain that the combination was published on paper and sent to X number of herbaria/libraries (can't remember the number). This is how those guys got Phrag kovachii out so fast: "special issue" of Selbyana.

    So, for the case above, I'd merely need to get somebody to let me publish the following:

    Mexipedium schlimii (Linden ex Rchb.f.) V.A. Albert, comb. nov.
    Basionym: Cypripedium schlimii Linden ex Rchb.f.

    I wouldn't need a diagnosis nor a description. The above is it. NOT EVEN mention that the plant is now considered a Phrag. That's because the TYPE SPECIES lies in the genus CYPRIPEDIUM, since Phrag schlimii was itself a later combination when Phrag was erected!! --> Phragmipedium schlimii (Linden ex Rchb.f.) Rolfe. In that case, Rolfe made the combination -- mine to Mex is indicated above...

    best,

    Vic.
     
  9. Mar 20, 2010 #69

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    anybody interested in this sort of stuff anymore??

    anybody interested in this sort of stuff anymore??

    Best,

    Vic.
     
  10. Mar 20, 2010 #70

    Kevin

    Kevin

    Kevin

    Guest

    Yes. Very interesting, if somewhat confusing at times.
     
  11. Mar 20, 2010 #71

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    VAAlbert

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    OK, that said, where to begin?

    V.
     
  12. Mar 21, 2010 #72

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Guest

    Um... you brought it up. Something is apparently on your mind. Get the ball rolling..

    -Ernie
     
  13. Mar 21, 2010 #73

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,105
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    If you don't need a proof to make a classification why is it adopted?
     
  14. Mar 21, 2010 #74

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    phytomanic

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin USA
    There is never any 'proof' and generally no formal 'adoption'. If persuasive evidence is presented within the existing rules the new classification will be accepted provisionally by prevailing opinion, until better evidence is presented. It will always be subject to change on the basis of new knowledge and interpretation, or new rules. There will never be one accepted taxonomy for all time - at best an enduring concensus. They call this process science.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  15. Mar 21, 2010 #75

    Lanmark

    Lanmark

    Lanmark

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fascinating stuff! Evolution never stops, so this thread should go on forever! I love reading and digesting this information. We have a lot of brillliant minds here! :) I only wish I had more education in this area to be able to contribute something meaningful to the thread.

    Carry on... ;)
     
  16. Mar 22, 2010 #76
    While we're at it on taxonomy....is Koopowitz the only one who consider's viniferum a valid species?
     
  17. Mar 22, 2010 #77

    Rick

    Rick

    Rick

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Leiper's Fork, TN
    Job security for taxonomists:evil:
     
  18. Mar 22, 2010 #78

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Guest

    No, you really have to be a systematic taxonomist to understand how they/we think. We?- I'm trained as a fish systematist, just don't "practice" for a living anymore. Names aren't made up just to publish stuff. Other than collecting specimens and maybe traveling to other museums, taxonomy is a pretty inexpensive science compared to many other disciplines (like the mucho costly pharma/bioengineering research I do now). So grants are usually geared to conservation/biodiversity. Systematists (most?) do their thing because they honestly can't help it- they want to know the truth and more searching leads to more knowledge leads to changes. New techniques give more areas to look... It's like a neurosis! I know it seems weird, but we're like the Rainmen (and women) of biology. Imagine living your life wanting to put name tags on everything- the sock drawer, your left and right shoes, the hangers in your closet. Really. I managed to dodge those tendencies long ago, but replaced it with systematic taxonomy and now managing a lab and our collection to redirect that energy a little more usefully. Shoot, at least plants sit still long enough to stick a name tag on them. Fish never stand still long enough! When a name changes or a new variety/form is created, it's hard for me to not change a tag- just like if someone swapped the tags for the left and right shoes. Make a little more sense?

    -Ernie
     
  19. Mar 22, 2010 #79

    Leo Schordje

    Leo Schordje

    Leo Schordje

    wilted blossom

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NE Illinois
    I have seen seedlings of selfings of callosum 'Sparkling Burgundy' which is the clone used by Stewarts Orchids & or Rex van Delden to make the first series of vinicolor Maudiae & other vini hybrids. These plants look like Paph callosum. This form of vinicolor breeds as a single Mendalian gene, and is dominant for expression.

    I have seen seedlings of a selfing of callosum 'JAC' which was the type specimen for the description of Paph viniferum. They do not look like a typical Paph callosum. The petals are encrusted with warts, and lots of hairs. The whole look was quite different than the 'Sparkling Burgundy' types. The vinicolor trait in the JAC line is recessive. In the hetrozygous state it gives the rather beautiful peacock flame types. It also passes on heavy warting in the petals. I think there is a good argument for calling a different species, but unless a origin is found and additional specimens are observed in nature, I really am not 100% sure if it is good as a species, or if it is really just a truely unusual mutant callosum. I do know I am fairly comfortable with the species viniferum name based on plant appearance, they really look different. Lack of field data is my only hesitation on the viniferum name.
     
  20. Mar 22, 2010 #80

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Guest

    Much agreed. Lack of field data is the only reason I didn't author over two dozen descriptions of Corydoras species because I got them as "contaminants" with other species. I have major issues with descriptions from "hobby" specimens. I get the idea of not actually publishing the location to prevent collection, but the plants should still be jungle.

    -Ernie
     

Share This Page

arrow_white