Correct term for popowii

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Gcroz, Jul 2, 2013.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Jul 2, 2013 #1

    Gcroz

    Gcroz

    Gcroz

    2yr HCC Awarded Stud

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I have been corrected on eBay regarding my Phrag. Devil Fire- Grande x popowii. A bidder corrected me saying that I listed the plant with the incorrect parentage. She stated it was Grande x warscewiczianum, according to Orchid Wiz. However, RHS listed the cross as Grande x humboldtii, which popowii and warscewiczii are synonyms.

    It is my understanding that, while Grande x humboldtii is the correct cross terminology, the others are also correct since they are horticultural synonyms. Am I correct or am I mistaken?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2013
  2. Jul 2, 2013 #2

    likespaphs

    likespaphs

    likespaphs

    some call me brian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,191
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cape Cod
  3. Jul 3, 2013 #3

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,583
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I don't know if the name is settled once and for all. The last I heard, humboltii is the latest accepted name.

    The bidder is relying on one source, but that source is not necessarily the final say.
     
  4. Jul 3, 2013 #4

    eteson

    eteson

    eteson

    Phragmad

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bogotá (Colombia)
    If we follow to Braem et al., 2004, Phragmipedium popowii is the correct name.

    According to this publication Phrag. humboldtii is not a valid name because it is derived from a bad translation from the original texts in German to English.

    The publication is this one:
    Braem, G.J., S. Ohlund and R.-J. Quené. 2004.
    The Real Phragmipedium warszewiczianum. A Clarification of the Phragmipedium caudatum Complex. Orquideología 23(2):117–136.

    According this pubication:
    wallisi is warszewiczianum
    humboldtii should be named popowii


    I´ve read the whole paper and makes sense to me. If someone is interested in the publication I can scan it to share.
     
  5. Jul 3, 2013 #5

    TyroneGenade

    TyroneGenade

    TyroneGenade

    mad scientist

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    Keep the name you have. I say this simply because in a few years time the taxonomists may resurrect popowii to full species again. Also, your cross may come from a humboltii with a very different form than the typical plants---i.e. fomr a popowii plant. The name you are currently using contains far more information than the Devil Fire or Grande x humboltii. Keep the name you have with the plant.
     
  6. Jul 3, 2013 #6
    Different points are being made, it appears we're all in agreement, leave it as is!
     
  7. Jul 5, 2013 #7

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,519
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    wallisii! :evil:
     
  8. Jan 24, 2014 #8

    silence882

    silence882

    silence882

    Lurker ST Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Maryland
    BUMP!

    I just e-mailed the Orchid Register and asked about this because I was thoroughly confused as to what to use on the slipperorchids.info primary hybrid page. They are currently using the following names:

    Phrag. humboldtii - dark colored from southern Central America, previously Phrag. warszewiczianum, synonyms include Phrag. warszewiczii, Phrag. popowii, Phrag. exstaminodium subsp. warszewiczii
    [​IMG]

    Phrag. warszewiczianum - yellowish clone from Ecuador/Colombia/Peru, used to be Phrag. wallisii, Phrag. caudatum var. wallisii.
    [​IMG]

    I find this all very confusing, myself. However, I want to keep the website current with what the register is using, so I'll be changing everything over in the near future.

    --Stephen
     
  9. Jan 24, 2014 #9

    eteson

    eteson

    eteson

    Phragmad

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bogotá (Colombia)
    Hi Stephen, I´ve been very interesterested in the caudatum complex and reading a lot about this complex.

    The nomencalture that is being followed by the Orchid Register is partially according to: Braem, G.J., S. Ohlund and R.-J. Quené. (2004).
    "The Real Phragmipedium warszewiczianum. A Clarification of the Phragmipedium caudatum Complex". Orquideología 23(2):117–136. (for warszewiczianum)

    And according to Dressler and Pupulin (2011) "Phragmipedium section Phragmipedium" (for humboldtii)


    One point treated in the paper of Dressler and Pupulin (2011) "Phragmipedium section Phragmipedium" about "wallisii" is very interesting: Since lindenni is a peloric form of "wallisii" and was described earlier..., they say that this should be named as lindenii subsp. wallisii...

    But if we follow the principle of priority the valid name of "wallisii" should be warszewiczianum... ¿Or maybe lindenii subsp. warszewiczianum? I do not remember rigth now which was described earlier lindenii or warszewiczianum.

    Now it is not confusing anymore... but crazy! :rollhappy:

    I guess that you have alredy the bibliography but if you need the first paper (the second is easily avaliable) please contact with me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2014
  10. Jan 25, 2014 #10
    I feel like a hamster on a wheel. Every time I get off its different, but the same...
     

Share This Page

arrow_white