General Orchid Taxonomy

[Braem]

Heather,

I agree with you. We must get the correct names out there. If we are going to straighten out the mess we need many things.

1) leave taxonomy to the taxonomists (that will cut the new names, and still leave enough room to quarrel).
2) Set up a set of rules to delineate entities. That will be the most difficult task.
3) Set up award groups and commercial grower groups that award ONLY properly identified plants and breed ONLY with properly identified plants.

Now to philippinense:

First of all let me put in a plug for the book (Webmaster forgive me).
Many of the problems in Paphiopedilum have been addressed by some strange Belgian-born, German taxonomist working in the depths of the Hessian jungle.

Braem & Chiron,
Paphiopedilum, 2003
Tropicalia. The book is available in the USA and Canada through Linda Petchnick. Just "google" for her website.
It is Christmas time soon, and some might still have someone asking: "What do you wish for Christmas?" and before you get 3 pairs of socks or your 17th silk tie ... put the book on your list.

Now there, Dear Heather, you will also find the differentiation between philippinense and roebelenii and you will read (page 349) that Reichenbach himself was not sure about the taxonomic status of his "Cyp. roebbelenii"

And on page 353 you will find:

"Paphiopedilum roebbelenii is similar to its close relative P. philippinense. It differs, however, in narrower leaves, by the higher density of the hairs on the peduncle, and by the lack of green markings on the staminodal shield."

Quotes with the generous and kind permission of the author

Guido

See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true besseae var. dalessandroi or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!

Speaking of the philippinense mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!)

Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.

 

[lienluu]

Dear Robert,

Sorry that I misunderstood you. Yes, something MUST be done. And yes, it will be difficult. But we should try. And how can we do it. I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.

Guido

A wonderful idea, perhaps we can start a new forum category for this?

 

[Braem]

Rick,

Oh Oh ... here we go again:

1) No-one has yet come up with a better idea than "priority". Therefore, if priority is "on" there is a race for publication. And as humans are humans, there are people that steal other peoples ideas. I will not give any names here, but I have suffered from that myself even very recently. Therefore, no-one discloses his/her ideas before publication, and even that has now been proven to allow crooks to express their criminal energy.

2) As long as ANYONE can publish taxa, one has to be very, very careful what one says even when visiting an orchid society for a lecture or when being invited to view some amateur greenhouse. And again, I know what I am talking about. I have learned the hard way.

2) Peer review: I have gone through this discussion before:

I am peer reviewer for 4 (four) journals, two of which are very famous, international botany journals (and I always allow my name to be disclosed). Thus again, I know what I talk about:

a) peer review CAN be helpful. It is NOT AUTOMATICALLY a garantee. There have been bull articles in Science and Nature and in many in peer review botanical journals.
b) non-peer review journals MAY be lesser "quality", they don't have to be.
c) remember the rule of priority.
d) peer reviewers are very often not familiar with the topic and make wrong decisions. One of my articles was refused by two peer reviewers who claimed I had founded my argumentation on the wrong rules in the Code and even accused me of misquoting the Code. I asked the Editor in chief to read the Code and he had to conclude that his two peer reviewers (USA botanists) were not capable of reading plain English (and I am being VERY diplomatic). (Just one little example ... there are many more).
d) Most orchid literature is done in non-peer review journals: Orchid Digest, Orchid Review, Australian Orchid Review, Die Orchidee, Caesiana, L' Orchidophile, Orchids (formely AOS Bulletin). Now, Jim Watson of Orchids changes manuscripts without the permisiion of the authors, Harold Koopowitz refused to publish an article of mine (after soliciting it) because he did "not want to upset Bob Dressler". On the other hand, he published an article of Bob Dressler on the subject with obvious wrong data.
Olaf Gruss can publish anything he wants in Die Orchidee. Harold could even describe his own grandma as a Paph. hybrid and get away with it in OD. Luer could tranfer Diefenbachia to Lepanthes and Missouri would publish it. After that he would be hailed (sp) as the Guru again in the Pleurothallid Alliance Newsletter. Koeniger created his own Journal to publish ONLY his own taxa. No delay, no questions ... and for God's sake, no publications of any botanist or anyone else [Königer told me himself. He wanted me to write an article on the typification of Oncidium, but he wanted to publish it under his name.]

Today, all it needs to have a publication is a PDF file and two friends at a University or a botanical garden that confirm that they have received the "publication" 8 weeks before, and you can beat ANY publication.

Conclusion, the rules stink. And serious attempts to change them have not found consent.

And yes, the primary tool for a taxonomist is general botany, morphology, anatomy, and it should be that way. This should be paired with secondary tools such as chromosome counting, Karyotyping, Electron microscopy, DNA study etc. etc. But the basis of taxonomy must remain alpha-taxonomy. Or do you have an electron microscope available to check sub molecular differences in plants??? This is just one example.

Enough for one post.

Guido

My impression of the process of describing a new taxa (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Is that it is a race done by individuals or small closed teams of individuals. The primary tool is morphometric analysis, and sometimes population analysis is added.

Once the new taxon is described in print (is there a peer review process?), then it seems like other taxonomists get there shot at accepting or debunking the status (over a long period of time).

Is it possible (or is it already being done) that new material be passed around to several taxonomists, population biologists, and DNA analyists all at one time before a new taxa gets officially described?

Scientific methods to differentiate will always continue to improve, but it may make the first name more robust for a longer time to develop new species lables by consensus.

 

[Wendy]

What about Phrag tetzlaffianum? In your opinion is it a species or a hybrid? I have heard that it may be in fact Phrag Simon Marcotte (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum). I have both plant but to date have only bloomed the tetzlaffianum and have been unable to compare.

 

[Heather]

I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.

Guido

I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?

 

[Heather]

Braem & Chiron,
Paphiopedilum, 2003
Tropicalia. The book is available in the USA and Canada through Linda Petchnick. Just "google" for her website.
It is Christmas time soon, and some might still have someone asking: "What do you wish for Christmas?" and before you get 3 pairs of socks or your 17th silk tie ... put the book on your list.

Yes, that would be the one I don't have.
who needs socks anyway?

However, I brought The Genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation, Vol. 1 to work with me this morning and saw the same on p. 156.

One thing I am a bit confused about is the difference between 'type' and 'variety'. Is there a difference or are those two terms interchangeable? Is it true then that Paph. palawense should be referred to as Paph. philippinense var. palawense? On p. 151, the photo caption reads "type" (I love that plant by the way!) but on p. 154 under the aureum variety of Paph. philippinense, the photo caption reads "Paph. philippinense var."

I'm generally a bit anal about making sure I name my plants correctly, in case you hadn't noticed yet.

 

[Braem]

Phrag. tetzlaffianum

Wendy,

That is exactly my state of knowledge about the situation. It is definitely not a good species. "Well informed" sources out of Canada have informed me that the plant sent to Olaf was in fact an awarded clone of Phragmipedium Simon Marcotte. I have no evidence that would speak against that.

In any case, it is not a species. There is no record, whatsoever of the plant ever having been collected in the wild.

Phragmipedium Simon Marcotte is a F3 hybrid and will therefore be very variable. Thus comparing a single plant won't do and will prove nothing.

Guido

What about Phrag tetzlaffianum? In your opinion is it a species or a hybrid? I have heard that it may be in fact Phrag Simon Marcotte (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum). I have both plant but to date have only bloomed the tetzlaffianum and have been unable to compare.

 

[Braem]

Ha,

so I assume that Heather is one of the webmasters. Good.
Heather, I am thinking about it ... give me a little time.

Guido

I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?

 

[Braem]

Heather,

Best is to check http://www.orchidpainter.com
The good looking woman is Linda. Give her my regards, I haven't heard from her in ages.
There is a link to the book.

About the socks. Where do you live. I am sitting here with two pairs on. It is getting cool over here. (And I don't care that Gudrun *****es about the amount of laundry, it is just one of those points in respect to which I don't agree with Einstein).

"The genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation" is not complete. The Publisher refused to print volume 3, never sold volume 2 (of which 5000 were printed and of which I have only ever got one single copy) except on the day when it was released and never advertised volume one beyond his own nursery.
Please don't ask me to go into the details on the forum.

And Heather, being anal about something is always better than being nothing about something.

Guido

Yes, that would be the one I don't have.
who needs socks anyway?

However, I brought The Genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation, Vol. 1 to work with me this morning and saw the same on p. 156.

One thing I am a bit confused about is the difference between 'type' and 'variety'. Is there a difference or are those two terms interchangeable? Is it true then that Paph. palawense should be referred to as Paph. philippinense var. palawense? On p. 151, the photo caption reads "type" (I love that plant by the way!) but on p. 154 under the aureum variety of Paph. philippinense, the photo caption reads "Paph. philippinense var."

I'm generally a bit anal about making sure I name my plants correctly, in case you hadn't noticed yet.

 

[Braem]

Heather, I am working on the name. It gotta be something that we can "Standardise"

And no, "type" and "variety" should (in my opinion) not be interchanged as they both have a specific meaning in taxonomy. That is another problem we have to solve: define all the terms in a sense as to rule out any possibility of getting confused.

Do you realise we are in for 20 years or work? Oh ... what am I getting myself into? I will definitely not live to see the end of it.

I believe Sandy Ohlund is lurking. Sandy, I need your help! (I know, nothing new).

Guido

One thing I am a bit confused about is the difference between 'type' and 'variety'. Is there a difference or are those two terms interchangeable? Is it true then that Paph. palawense should be referred to as Paph. philippinense var. palawense? On p. 151, the photo caption reads "type" (I love that plant by the way!) but on p. 154 under the aureum variety of Paph. philippinense, the photo caption reads "Paph. philippinense var."

 

[SlipperFan]

Yes, Sandy. Come out, come out, wherever you are...

Guido, I'm really happy to see your posts here.

 

[Heather]

Heather,

"The genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation" is not complete.

Then it is an extra good thing that I only grow the multiflorals, isn't it? Thank goodness they went into Volume 1! :evil:

Guido,
I am in New England, where we are continuing to have relatively warm temperatures for the season. I was really joking about the socks - my favorite socks are 'Smartwool' socks. I'm really anal about the type of socks I wear too. Generally if it is a question of buying things related to orchids, clothes, or food, I will choose Orchids. Linda's site has been bookmarked.

 

[Braem]

Work

Dot,

She is in Rolling Prairy, Indiana

Heather,

The name for the new tread I propose is CTP standing for

Codex taxinomiae plantarum (we could put that in brackets or vice versa)

That makes it pretty "serious" and protects that name for us. I have chosen "plantarum" because that would allow to include "Horticulture" (hybrids etc). and "taxinomiae" is correct, not a typo.

All people involved should know and acknowledge, that this is a very serious business.

Guido

Yes, Sandy. Come out, come out, wherever you are...

Guido, I'm really happy to see your posts here.

 

[Heather]

The name for the new tread I propose is CTP standing for

Codex taxinomiae plantarum (we could put that in brackets or vice versa)

That makes it pretty "serious" and protects that name for us. I have chosen "plantarum" because that would allow to include "Horticulture" (hybrids etc). and "taxinomiae" is correct, not a typo.

All people involved should know and acknowledge, that this is a very serious business.

Guido

The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?

 

[Braem]

New Forum

By the way, all people who want to join us should know that we are not going to make but friends doing this.

Guido

I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?

 

[Braem]

OK ..

Will do ... Give me time to take a good dose of cyanide first.

Guido

The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?

 

[Braem]

Heather, please contact me off forum on this.

Guido

The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?

 

[Wendy]

Thank you for your answer . I suspected that it was a hybrid.

Also thank you for starting this thread...very interesting.

 

[John M]

Dr. Braem, This is a WONDERFUL thread! Thank you for creating it and spending so much time monitoring and responding to it. I just found your thread today and couldn't stop reading until I'd consumed all 8 pages! It is wonderful to have you and Olaf in our midst, sharing your knowledge so freely. Thank you!


Quoted by Paphjoint:

Mr Braem,

No reason to calm down your posts does not really excite me,

Its common and widely accepted to use aliases in internet forums - and the use of an alias does not mean that I hide my ID -


I did complain about your presence here to the mods - but as it is a free and openminded forum you're allowed to post here - so take this as an opportunity to be polite towards the forum members although they're not highly skilled botanists or taxonomists

PAPHJOINT, for crying out loud. SMARTEN UP!

 

[littlefrog]

I don't think Sandy is lurking here... But next time I see her I'll give her a poke.

Rob