SlipperFan
Addicted
...I remember being told that it was believed Paphs were much more closely related to a non-orchid genera. I can't tremember which, but it was a common garden/vegetable plant.
David
Asparagus.
...I remember being told that it was believed Paphs were much more closely related to a non-orchid genera. I can't tremember which, but it was a common garden/vegetable plant.
David
Asparagus.
Asparagus.
Thanks Dot. That is the one. It is hard to see the relationship but I have yet to here an explanation of the links. I'd be interested to know if there are current taxonomists that believe this or if it was just the view back in 1830.
Maybe I should try and eat a Paph. If it tastes as bad as asparagas then I could be convinced.
David
Paph helenae are ok in a salad but I wouldn't eat them every day. delicatum may be better but I'm yet to taste this delicacy.
Mick
Maybe I should try and eat a Paph. If it tastes as bad as asparagas then I could be convinced.
That's because you haven't been cooking asparagus correctly... oke: asparagus.. yum!
Rick as far as i know Dimorphorchis have two perfect flowers. on lowii for example there is a yellow flower with stigma and pollen and a red flower with stigma and pollen. they are slightly differently formed and colored but as far as i know they are perfect flowers.
Why would that sound stupid ? .... we separate genera and species on much smaller differences ... Dahlgren et al, and Vermeulen didn't find it stupid ... and neither do I ... then "Orchids" will be Orchidales and there will be three families (a) Aspostasieae with three fertile anthers, (b) Cypripedieae with two fertile anthers, and (c) Orchidaceae with one fertile anther.
Its like women ... blondes, brunettes, redheads ... but they are all women ...
all you do is change the levels, nothing more ...
Well, that is what you and some others accept ... others don't ... see vermeulen and Dahlgren et al.When I was taught the definition of what is an orchid there were characteristics that were supposed to be identifiers, 6 flower parts, pollonia instead of pollen, vascular leaf structures, etc... if these characteristics are present then it's an orchid, if there are additional traits, still an orchid. if the basic requirements are not there...not an orchid! If you get to find differences within those categories that doesn't preclude the plant from still being an orchid. Therefore the arguement is stupid, in my opinion.
..And I would not consider John Lindley, Vermeulen, Dahlgren, Clifford, Yeo and some other professional botanists (including myself) as having stupid ideas.
Therefore the arguement is stupid, in my opinion.
I agree on the fact that the argument is purely academicNo, I never said having the idea is stupid. However investing energy in the argument that slippers are not orchids would be a waste of my time.
Oh No ... I had that idea already 25 years ago ... If Slippers would no longer be "Orchids" those Cites mafioso would simply put an addition to cites ti include the slippers again. They may be crooks, but they are not that stupid.If paphiopedilum would not be considered orchids. CITES can be disposed in the garbage pail.
Oh No ... I had that idea already 25 years ago ... If Slippers would no longer be "Orchids" those Cites mafioso would simply put an addition to cites ti include the slippers again. They may be crooks, but they are not that stupid.
Enter your email address to join: