General Orchid Taxonomy

[Braem]

Dot,

I don't think that one should make life for himself that easy. If you register a hybrid without knowing what the hybrid is, you block the registration of a really true hybrid of the parents. If you register AY as being A x Y, but your "A" is not "A", anyone who does make a real AY is cheated.

If you make a P. Hanne Popow (besseae x schlimii) with "P. schlimii Wilcox" you will get one with big flowers and that will be compared with the real ones that have small flowers. Now, what is going to happen at Judging??

And that is the problem. I don't care how many hybrids you people want to register, I wish all of you zillions of awards, but you are cheeting everyone if the plant you enter is not the real thing. No matter whether you did it in good faith or not.

So what I am saying is very simple. Hybrid registration should be done only by those that made the hybrid. And the past "events" show that such restricted procedure would leave enough room for trouble.

Guido

I'm back on-line -- my cable connection was down for awhile. This is a great thread.

I am of the understanding that if I get a plant awarded that doesn't have a name, before I can name it, I must try to locate the hybridizer and ask them if they want to name the plant. If I can't locate the hybridizer, then after a certain period of time, I can submit a name. The same is true if I make a hybrid from parent(s) that are unnamed. Before I can name my hybrid, I must try to locate the hybridizer of the parent(s). This has happened with us more than once at Porter's Orchids. I wonder if this procedure was followed with the plant you are talking about.

I do hope Sandy weighs in. I contacted her a couple of weeks ago when this thread was getting going. She hadn't heard of SlipperTalk at that point, but she does now.

So, come on, Sandy...

 

[SlipperFan]

So what I am saying is very simple. Hybrid registration should be done only by those that made the hybrid. And the past "events" show that such restricted procedure would leave enough room for trouble.

Guido

That's why I said that we had to try to contact the original hybridizers to see if they wanted to name it. In my own personal case, the hybridizer had died, and no one in his estate would respond. It took 6 months of trying to find someone, including internet and orchid documentation research, emails, phone calls and letters.

 

[Braem]

OK Dot,

but then my opinion on this is: don't register the hybrid. If that means you don't get the award ... tough luck.

Guido

That's why I said that we had to try to contact the original hybridizers to see if they wanted to name it. In my own personal case, the hybridizer had died, and no one in his estate would respond. It took 6 months of trying to find someone, including internet and orchid documentation research, emails, phone calls and letters.

 

[NYEric]

I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.

 

[gonewild]

OK Dot,

but then my opinion on this is: don't register the hybrid. If that means you don't get the award ... tough luck.

Guido

Guido,

I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
Zero tolerance.

Now Guido here is how zero tolerance works...
If you did not discover the specie in the wild.. Don't describe it. If you did not find it... tough luck.

Both scenarios have a merit. Not knowing 100% positive the parents of a hybrid is no different than not knowing for sure the real collection point of a wild plant. When someone sends you a specimen they claim was collected in the wild how do you, the taxonomist, know with 100% certainty it is truly from a wild plant that is indeed truly not a hybrid, either mane made or natural?

By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.

 

[gonewild]

I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.

Or a new specie found by someone else.

 

[slippertalker]

Guido,

I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
Zero tolerance.

Now Guido here is how zero tolerance works...
If you did not discover the specie in the wild.. Don't describe it. If you did not find it... tough luck.

Both scenarios have a merit. Not knowing 100% positive the parents of a hybrid is no different than not knowing for sure the real collection point of a wild plant. When someone sends you a specimen they claim was collected in the wild how do you, the taxonomist, know with 100% certainty it is truly from a wild plant that is indeed truly not a hybrid, either mane made or natural?

By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.

I sort of like this scenario....:evil: ....We would have a bunch of unnamed species and hybrids. If you think the present problems are a mess, no names is even worse.

 

[SlipperFan]

I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
Zero tolerance....
...By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.

The only way this would work is if anyone who made a hybrid is required to name and register it. That would take care of this problem, because unnamed hybrids are legion!

 

[Braem]

I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.

What hybrid? You don't know what it is. It can be anything. It is irresponsible to register a hybrid if you cannot be sure what the parents are.
That is one of the main problems in orchid horticulture. That is why 70 or more % of the hybrids are not what they are labeled at.

Guido

 

[Braem]

Now you are comparing apples with pears.

A new species IS unknown. Therfore, if one has established that the species is unknown, you describe it. And as it is unknown, there is no mistake. And it does not matter where you got it from. The collection point of the species has nothing to do with the identity of the species.

And yes, it is a problem to know whether the plant brought into our office comes from the wild. Sometimes it is easy to recognise (that is what true taxonomists have been trained for), sometimes it is difficult. And one must know who brings the plant. In my 30 years of doing this, my judgement on this was possibly wrong once.

And I have refused to describe quite a few plants.

Guido

PS. And why do you talk about "specie", the terminology is "species".

Guido,

I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
Zero tolerance.

Now Guido here is how zero tolerance works...
If you did not discover the specie in the wild.. Don't describe it. If you did not find it... tough luck.

Both scenarios have a merit. Not knowing 100% positive the parents of a hybrid is no different than not knowing for sure the real collection point of a wild plant. When someone sends you a specimen they claim was collected in the wild how do you, the taxonomist, know with 100% certainty it is truly from a wild plant that is indeed truly not a hybrid, either mane made or natural?

By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.

 

[Braem]

Yes,

that would be a step forward. And why should he/she not want to do it?

Guido

The only way this would work is if anyone who made a hybrid is required to name and register it. That would take care of this problem, because unnamed hybrids are legion!

 

[Braem]

Or a new specie found by someone else.

Again, that is a completely different construction site. In species there are no parents to be mistaken. The plant is new to science. You cannot compare this with a hybrid.

Guido

 

[gonewild]

Now you are comparing apples with pears.

I like pear-apples, or apple-pears, or Asian pears, whichever name you prefer to call them by.

But I think I'm comparing apples to apples. Just as you say a new species is unknown the person with the new hybrid says the same about the new plant they are dealing with.

A new species IS unknown. Therfore, if one has established that the species is unknown, you describe it. And as it is unknown, there is no mistake. And it does not matter where you got it from. The collection point of the species has nothing to do with the identity of the species.

But where and how the plant exists in nature should have everything to do with how you determine if it is a new species. You should know the plant is actually part of a reproducing population in the wild. Unless you know for certain the plant exists as a population in the wild how are you to be certain it is not a natural hybrid or worse yet a man made hybrid?

And yes, it is a problem to know whether the plant brought into our office comes from the wild. Sometimes it is easy to recognise (that is what true taxonomists have been trained for), sometimes it is difficult. And one must know who brings the plant. In my 30 years of doing this, my judgement on this was possibly wrong once.

That is a remarkable record! I'm sure you must have a colleague or two out there that would disagree with your claim? But the issue is not whether the plant was growing in the wild, the point is whether it is actually a new species from a wild population or a hybrid that was growing in or near the wild. Or a garden grown hybrid someone filled his research quota with.

And I have refused to describe quite a few plants.

I am curious, when you refuse to describe a plant does another taxonomist then step in a describe the species?

Guido

PS. And why do you talk about "specie", the terminology is "species".

Well, because my spell checker does not know the difference and likes to drop the s and I did not catch the error. I'll have to have a chat with that fellow under the "ABC"

 

[gonewild]

Yes,

that would be a step forward. And why should he/she not want to do it?

Guido

I believe Dot said in her case the hybridizer was dead.

 

[gonewild]

Again, that is a completely different construction site. In species there are no parents to be mistaken. The plant is new to science. You cannot compare this with a hybrid.

Guido

Unless the "wild" plant in question is in fact a hybrid or genetic sport and only exists as a single individual in the wild.

 

[gonewild]

What hybrid? You don't know what it is. It can be anything. It is irresponsible to register a hybrid if you cannot be sure what the parents are.
That is one of the main problems in orchid horticulture. That is why 70 or more % of the hybrids are not what they are labeled at.

Guido

But the registration of a hybrid has nothing to do with what is written on the label of a plant. The registration of a hybrid is merely a permanent name assigned to the combination of two other plants. The name is used by every future cross for the same two "named plants", it is not exclusive to the original seed pod.

In the grand scope of things it matters not who gives the name. So the registered name "Simon Marcotle" is correct for (ecuadorense x Nitidissium). Now quite possibly the person registering the hybrid does not actually own a plant of "Simon Marcotle" and if so should unlabel it. But we are talking about one clone. Now if someone in the future makes the cross between (ecuadorense x Nitidissium) it will already be registered as "Simon Marcotle". No harm done as far as registration is concerned, except someone falsely got credit for being the first to make the cross.

In the case of the above scenario I don't see the harm done to the "registration system".

If in fact 70% or more of the named orchid hybrids are incorrectly labeled then there is no point in trying to figure out a better method. It is beyond repair.

 

[gonewild]

Guido,

This is your thread, without going back and re-reading all 12 pages I'm not sure we are still on the subject you intended to follow. (Although I think it is a good discussion). Please redirect the focus if you feel we are straying off topic.

 

[Heather]

With regards to 'specie' vs. 'species', I've seen if often referred to as 'specie', generally by Europeans. Is this just a case of differences in spelling, i.e. 'colour' vs. 'color'?

 

[gonewild]

With regards to 'specie' vs. 'species', I've seen if often referred to as 'specie', generally by Europeans. Is this just a case of differences in spelling, i.e. 'colour' vs. 'color'?

Got me! In the past I always wrote "species". I see it used both ways on the Internet and the spell checker suggested "specie" so I let it change it. I figured it was another word (name ) change. Looking it up in the dictionary shows specie is coin money!
I'll differ to Guido's expertise and use "species".

 

[Braem]

But where and how the plant exists in nature should have everything to do with how you determine if it is a new species. You should know the plant is actually part of a reproducing population in the wild. Unless you know for certain the plant exists as a population in the wild how are you to be certain it is not a natural hybrid or worse yet a man made hybrid?

A lot of experience, and when you get them out of the jungle, the chances are that you have a species or a natural hybrid. And differentiating between them is botany. That is what we have been trained for. Just like a car mechanic can diagnose what is wrong when your car refused to move. Of course we know certain growers have a reputation of putting man-mad hybrids into the jungle. Liem Khe Wie did that starting 30 years ago, and his son and cousin still do today. And there are some others. I can pretty well say whether a plant has been wild collected or not.
And there are a few other tricks to find out. But those fall under professional confidentiality.

That is a remarkable record! I'm sure you must have a colleague or two out there that would disagree with your claim? But the issue is not whether the plant was growing in the wild, the point is whether it is actually a new species from a wild population or a hybrid that was growing in or near the wild. Or a garden grown hybrid someone filled his research quota with.

I am not saying that I don't make taxonomic mistakes. I have made a few. What I am saying is that I can tell when someone gives me a hybrid and tells me that it is a new species. Over the last five years, I had at least 50 "new species" offered to me.

And about the colleagues. I am pretty well immune to that. There always is someone there that will claim that one has made a mistake. I don't care as long as the criticism is constructive. However, it becomes hilarious (and sad) when a very senior botanist publishes bull just to take the pressure off HIS mistake, as happened recently in the P. popowii story. In the late seventies I was attacked when I revived Tolumnia (by the man who, himself wrote that the group did not belong in Oncidium!)... now everyone accepts it ... There are a few other examples. And of course, there is one colleague that no-one takes for serious anymore.

I am curious, when you refuse to describe a plant does another taxonomist then step in a describe the species?.

Yes, in such cases, there are others that will do it. Some because they don't know (and/or don't want to know), others for money. Some people would exhumate their own grandmother and describe the corpse as a new species if they could get away with it.

Guido