B
Braem
Guest
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
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
Heather said: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.