jackii and CITES

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Gcroz

2yr HCC Awarded Stud
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
774
Reaction score
6
Location
New Hampshire
A lot of talk about CITES recently, so it prompted me to write this question:

If jackii is considered a form of malipoense, a species relatively easy to obtain, is it easier to receive CITES documentation?

I understand the concept of the paper trail, but that is not really what I'm wondering about. If jackii is a form of malipoense, then would labeling the plants as "malipoense" without form identification be viable? I realize that this may be within the "letter" but not "spirit" of the law, but I don't know the technicalities. If jackii is considered a species, the result is a higher burden to meet due to Vietnam's standpoint on exported plants. Correct?

I had this discussion with a very well respected paph. grower, someone I'm willing to wager most all U.S. paph. growers know, and his standpoint was that since it is a form of malipoense, that it was easy to get and relatively 'legal." Oddly enough, he doesn't have any, which causes me to ask my question.

I admit, this may have been a disjointed post, but coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Thoughts, opinions, feelings...?
 
A spade's a spade. Lacey tells us that any plant not of acceptable origin is a no no, regardless of the name. But, you are right in that calling it malipoense will make it easier to move around. A flask or plant at US customs labeled malipoense probably won't raise many flags, but malipoense var. jackii or jackii probably would. The people that regulate such things know all our tricks (sinking varietal names into the nominal species etc). However, if you get one awarded, the AOS will likely nullify the award until you show some proof of origin.
 
A lot of talk about CITES recently, so it prompted me to write this question:

If jackii is considered a form of malipoense, a species relatively easy to obtain, is it easier to receive CITES documentation?

I understand the concept of the paper trail, but that is not really what I'm wondering about. If jackii is a form of malipoense, then would labeling the plants as "malipoense" without form identification be viable? I realize that this may be within the "letter" but not "spirit" of the law, but I don't know the technicalities. If jackii is considered a species, the result is a higher burden to meet due to Vietnam's standpoint on exported plants. Correct?

I had this discussion with a very well respected paph. grower, someone I'm willing to wager most all U.S. paph. growers know, and his standpoint was that since it is a form of malipoense, that it was easy to get and relatively 'legal." Oddly enough, he doesn't have any, which causes me to ask my question.

I admit, this may have been a disjointed post, but coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Thoughts, opinions, feelings...?


jackii doesn’t appear on the CITES species database at all. The database entry is Paphiopedilum malipoense S.C.Chen & Z.H.Tsi var. hiepii (Aver.) P.J.Cribb.
Regards, Mick
 
Is there a difference?

Yep, jackii was collected in moderately large numbers. Paph malipoense var hiepii was collected once, described, photographed and otherwise documented by Averynov. It has never been seen again. Averanov's photo in situ shows several plants in bloom, all looking alike with a weird hooked pouch. Later attemps to collect this sub-species all bloomed in captivity as normal malipoense var jackii. I'm not sure if later collection attempts were really at the correct location or not. There is also a theory that the form hiepii is really a population of stressed or nutritionally deficient jackii, and that hiepii plants when given good conditions will all bloom as jackii. I'm not sure what the real answer is, both sound plausible. The end result is, malipoense var hiepii is not known to be in cultivation.

Var jackii is definitely not the same as malipoense, its shape is different, and it even breeds a little different than malipoense. Hybrids with var jackii rarely get awarded because it tends to give its progeny narrow dorsals and long, somewhat narrow petals when compared to the same hybrid made with malipoense the normal type variety. And there is a staminode mark. In the type form, it is a solid dark purple blotch, and a solid blotch shows up in the hybrid progeny. Jackii has the spider web of purple lines, which also is passed on to the progeny. I have seen hybrid (malipoense x jackii) and the staminode mark is a mix of solid color fading into lines.
 
Jackii = not legal in USA.

I think, based on my understanding, that the legality of jackii in the US is dependent upon whether it is a pure species. If it is a form of malipoense, then the paper trail needs prove legitimate background, which would be relatively easy to do.

Does anyone have info regarding the initial release of malipoense into trade, ie when and from where? When was jackii discovered?

I do have books, but I'm away from home and thought I'd ask so that discussion can continue.
 
That is amusing as "hiepii" is known to be a hoax. "jackii" really is a "variety" or "form" of malipoense, but as long as there are no generally accepted rules about how taxa at any given taxonomic level are to be identified, it is anyone's call. I refrain from commenting CITES ...
 
Yes, Leo, but any variety will breed different ... thus, that is not any way one can delineate taxa at the species level.
 
Yes, Leo, but any variety will breed different ... thus, that is not any way one can delineate taxa at the species level.

I totally see Leo's point. I was lucky enough to be trained in taxonomy and study a group that doesn't make hybrids readily (if at all) (Corydoradine catfishes). :) I understand all the choices taxonomists make when documenting diversity, and with commercially significant taxa, it is useful (IMO) to recognize significant differences at the species level to adequately represent the taxon's contributions in hybrid registration (in the case of our beloved orchids). Jackii vs malipoense is a good example- if I bought a malipoense hybrid that bloomed out with jackii traits (i.e. crappier form) I'd be angry. Moquettianum/glaucophyllum is a classic example and anitum/adductum another. The other side of the coin is to sink varieties and forms into the species so they can evade the USFW sort of like we're talking about in this thread.

All this doesn't answer the eternal question of how different is different enough to call something a new species/variety/form/whatever. But this topic is a whole other can of fish fodder.
 
Yes, Leo, but any variety will breed different ... thus, that is not any way one can delineate taxa at the species level.

Thanks Guido, I understand, and I wouldn't know what level to put the taxa jackii at, species, subsecies, or simply a form or geographic race. Differences in breeding characteristics are less indicative than differences in chromosome counts. At least in orchids, neither has shown a good correlation to classical taxonomy. :evil:

Hey, the next time you are in the Chicago, or the Midwest, let's get together for dinner and a beer. And if you are ever in Florida, be sure to ask Ernie to bring along some of his home made beer, I'm certain you and Ernie would hit it off well.

Leo
 
As you will see in another line... I could not refrain ... apparently there ars still people that believe it to be possible to change CITES for the best ... I guess that is because it is Easter time and the bunnies lay eggs.

CITES has never worked and will never work. For some very simple reason:
1) there is no point in protecting plants or animals if you don't protect their habitats
2) CITES is governed by people that are overpaid and don't know what they are doing.
 
As you will see in another line... I could not refrain ... apparently there ars still people that believe it to be possible to change CITES for the best ... I guess that is because it is Easter time and the bunnies lay eggs.
:rollhappy:

CITES has never worked and will never work. For some very simple reason:
1) there is no point in protecting plants or animals if you don't protect their habitats
2) CITES is governed by people that are overpaid and don't know what they are doing.
That's it in a nutshell!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top