E
Ernie
Guest
Guess the parents of this primary...
The form of the dorsal and the flower/bud count might help.
-Ernie
The form of the dorsal and the flower/bud count might help.
-Ernie
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
E
Ernie
Guest
E
Ernie
Guest
Either way. You're right Kyle. You missed my point. Just making an argument that it should be victoria-regina instead of chamberlainianum.
We call it Paphiopedilum Zollingeri (spicerianum x victoria-regina). Yours would be Paphiopedilum Deedmannianum (chamberlainianum x spicerianum). We say tomAYto, you say tomAHto. Let's call the whole thing off.
I think it's a neat thing no mater what you call it. Two flowers and a bud with great color IMO on a nice compact plant. We'll keep watering it!
-Ernie
E
Ernie
Guest
SlipperFan
Addicted
I'm going to butt in -- I thought victoria reginae is now called chamberlainianum.
Candace
Well-Known Member
These all need to be put back under one name and call it a day. Stupid splitters...
E
Ernie
Guest
I love a friendly challenge.
See for yourself...http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/home.do
Type in "Paphiopedilum chamberlainianum" and "Paphiopedilum victoria-regina" (spelling counts) in turn and see which throws back a bold name...
-Ernie
Leo Schordje
wilted blossom
Ernie,Either way. You're right Kyle. You missed my point. Just making an argument that it should be victoria-regina instead of chamberlainianum.
We call it Paphiopedilum Zollingeri (spicerianum x victoria-regina). Yours would be Paphiopedilum Deedmannianum (chamberlainianum x spicerianum). We say tomAYto, you say tomAHto. Let's call the whole thing off.
I think it's a neat thing no mater what you call it. Two flowers and a bud with great color IMO on a nice compact plant. We'll keep watering it!
-Ernie
I think Kyle has the name right, please read Guido Braem's recent (2006 or 2007) analysis on victoria-regina. I and many others think Guido nailed it. The two names were published in an auction advertisment appearing in the same issue of Gardener's Chronicals. The description for chamberlainianum is clear, and refers nicely to the plant that today we have been calling variously chamberlainianum or victoria-regina. The description for victoria-regina was made by the SAME writer, (Low? of lowii fame, a man who knew Paphs) and the writer clearly thought victoria-regina was DIFFERNT than chamberlainianum. The description of the victoria-regina DOES NOT match the plants that modern hobby collectors are calling victoria-regina. Guido feels that Cribb was just plain WRONG. The name victoria-regina does not refer to any modern plant. It should be considered invalid. I & many others happen to agree with Guido. So - give Kyle double points for getting it right. Since the RHS is in an office down the hall from Cribbs old office (he now no longer works for the RHS) there was political preasure at the RHS to consider his opinions on taxonomy as 'dogma' rather than letting the debate and peer review sort it out. Read Guido's article and as a peer see if you come to agree with him.
Leo
paphioboy
hehehe...
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,253
- Reaction score
- 0
Just to clarify... So, now victoria-regina is the correct species name right? (",) So, then what happens to the hybrids registered with chamberlainianum as their parent? Is it considered synonymous with hybrids made with victoria-regina? Thank you...
SlipperFan
Addicted
So if I understand this correctly, even though victoria-regina is the Kew accepted name; according to Braem: anything today labeled victoria-regina is actually chamberlainianum.
Rick
Well-Known Member
The cochlopetalum have been getting named and renamed since 1903.
Cribb's naming (sometime after 1987) seems to incorporate changes of Wood in 1976 and Karasawa in 1982.
Karasawa made his changes on the basis of cytological (chromosome counts) differences. Wood and subsequently Cribb seemed to incorporate more info on geographic distribution. Braem is pretty conservative and probably wants chamberlainianum because that was the original 1903 name.
I think it was Candace who said to make them all one species, and that is essentially what Wood did in 1976. He made all cochlos victoria-regina with all the different subspecies and varieties pretty much what we see now as "species". But people are going to keep arguing no matter so they were changed again by Asher in 1980, Karasawa in 1982, Fowlie and Asher 1985, and then Cribb (1987?)
E
Ernie
Guest
Leo,
I don't disagree, BUT... It's not for us to decide- the experts don't agree so we fall to the "most knowledgable" group- which Kew claims the loudest to be. Apparently, the world takes their monocot list as the bible for valid orchid names and that's what's supposed to be followed for hybridization. We can't do much for the fact that scientist x had an office at Kew. I'm all for peer review, but what do you do in the case of a draw? IMO, for now, it's the best we have.. or is it? I've done some reading into the original glorified "for sale" ads for both of the cochlos in question and don't think either would stand up to today's standards of a decent taxonomic description. However, that standard has evolved over many years. If Logan lets me, I'll peruse the arguments again this weekend. I 100% disagree that all the cochlos should be lumped as one species!!! There are certain traits that are very particular to each taxon that are important horticulturally and until the hybridization records indicate parentage at the subspecific rank, things that breed this different should be named different- HOWEVER, where do we draw the line??? SHOOT, catfish taxonomy is so much simpler. The darn things aren't promiscuous enough to interbreed. Is it obvious I started this to bring up a point yet??? Keep the input coming folks... any of you taxonomists out there wish to sound off??? We're all ears!
-Ernie
I don't disagree, BUT... It's not for us to decide- the experts don't agree so we fall to the "most knowledgable" group- which Kew claims the loudest to be. Apparently, the world takes their monocot list as the bible for valid orchid names and that's what's supposed to be followed for hybridization. We can't do much for the fact that scientist x had an office at Kew. I'm all for peer review, but what do you do in the case of a draw? IMO, for now, it's the best we have.. or is it? I've done some reading into the original glorified "for sale" ads for both of the cochlos in question and don't think either would stand up to today's standards of a decent taxonomic description. However, that standard has evolved over many years. If Logan lets me, I'll peruse the arguments again this weekend. I 100% disagree that all the cochlos should be lumped as one species!!! There are certain traits that are very particular to each taxon that are important horticulturally and until the hybridization records indicate parentage at the subspecific rank, things that breed this different should be named different- HOWEVER, where do we draw the line??? SHOOT, catfish taxonomy is so much simpler. The darn things aren't promiscuous enough to interbreed.
Is it obvious I started this to bring up a point yet??? Keep the input coming folks... any of you taxonomists out there wish to sound off??? We're all ears! -Ernie
E
