Quantcast

Cypripedium malipoense?

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

G

gore42

Guest
Well, Paph malipoense was described in 1984 (Chen,Tsi), about 20 years before the journal appears to have been published, so my guess is that they weren't just late in getting the description out. I think it's a Cyp.

- Matthew Gore
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
gore42 said:
Well, Paph malipoense was described in 1984, about 20 years before the journal appears to have been published, so my guess is that they weren't just late in getting the description out. I think it's a Cyp.

- Matthew Gore
Right. That's what I was hoping for. Given the similarities of the taxonomists' names and the fact that it was on a website that may have had translation problems, I just wanted to double check with the lovely SlipperTalk folks!
 
M

Mahon

Guest
Here's my input... the description on this possibly new Cypripedium will most likely be rejected, as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says under 23B. (h);

"To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus."

Since it says its from SE Yun Nan, this is going to be where Paph. malipoense is going to be found... the other Cyp. species that are mentioned are those bifoliate, dwarf, highly mottled Cyp. species.

-PM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
Yeah, after I read more than the first line I realized it was definitely a Trig. Cyp. I should've updated!
 

silence882

Lurker
ST Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
954
Reaction score
66
Location
Maryland
Mahon said:
Here's my input... the description on this possibly new Cypripedium will most likely be rejected, as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says under 23B. (h);

"To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus."

Since it says its from SE Yun Nan, this is going to be where Paph. malipoense is going to be found... the other Cyp. species that are mentioned are those bifoliate, dwarf, highly mottled Cyp. species.

-PM
This quotation is from Recommendation 23A.3(h). My understanding is that the recommendations are what authors should do in describing new taxa, but they are not grounds for rejecting the names.

From the Preamble:
"5. The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to bring about greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future nomenclature; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be rejected, but they are not examples to be followed."

--Stephen
 
M

Mahon

Guest
I have the 1988 version, which differs ever so slightly over each revision (mine saying it is under 23B.1. (h)... I think they revise the book every 12 years...)

The reason I say the recommendation would be rejected is not because of the Botanical Congress, but more the people who grow, know, or describe the species... if this new "Cyp. malipoense" was described as a species nova, it would be implied (if one knew history of past placement of Paphiopedilum) that this had been found around the 1800's, and is assumed to be a synonym for Paph. malipoense...

an example: Cypripedium exul, which was described in 1892 by O'Brien, was later revised and placed as Paphiopedilum exul in 1896 by Rolfe. If one was to see an old drawing of this species, without knowing what Paph. exul truly looks like, but knowing many Cypripedium are now Paphiopedilum, it would be assumed the old synonym Cyp. exul really means Paph. exul

the comparison: Paphiopedilum malipoense was described in 1984, but the assumption of seeing the binary name "Cyp. malipoense" may suggest it is an older synonym, and is truly Paph. malipoense... though the suggestions in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are merely suggestions, the whole purpose of it all is to lessen confusion between related and un-related taxa, and have some uniform order... all this new "Cyp. malipoense" will cause is confusion (though apparently not here, as it is being well discussed)... there are other names that can be given, like a specific are in Yun Nan or in Malipo... or even name it after himself, he deserves it... =)

-Pat
 

yijiawang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
90
Reaction score
3
Location
Beijing,China
maybe I have grown this Cypr, it is from north of Vietnam, the shape very like C.lichiangense, but got some different from C.lichiangense.
 Flower: petals are longer and separate. Spottes are much more bigger than lichiangense, black.
 Leaves: Bigger.
 Root: There are more obviously root fuzzy on it
 Altitude: 1000~2000meter, lower than lichiangense and easier to grow.
A colorful photograph on Genus of Cypripedium(Philip Cribb), I think maybe same species.
 

Latest posts

Top