B
Braem
Guest
Hi all - Those of you who have received their Orchid Digest copy will have seen that Olaf and I have set up a new subgenus to accommodate Paphiopedilum canhii. A larger, more detailed article is in the make.
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
NYEric
Well-Known Member
True. GB, thanks for the info. 
J
Jorch
Guest
That's my though too. Boy, what a staminode on those flowers!
B
Braem
Guest
Both Pepe and Manolo now contacted me about pictures ... thanks for your help.
A pleasure for me to help!
About P.canhii,it have really interesting characteristics,including lip shape,and leaves colour.
Is something between a Parvi and a barbata type...still cannot figure out what is it...but as a start,i like the subgenus name you gived it...descriptive(that i like,in my opinion all names have to be descriptive of something morphological,or strictly linked to the plant/plant habitat)...and about a strong characteristic of this flower.
Roth
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,469
- Reaction score
- 390
The only reasonable way to do...
Leonid Averyanov released a new report on the Russord Small Grants website which I quote some parts ( as citations):
' First publication of new species with illustrations and description appeared in May issue of American Orchid Society Magazine (Orchids) that immediately introduced species to broad circle of orchid lovers all over the world. Unfortunately, published name cannot be regarded as valid due to superfluous citation of two elements as a nomenclature type (Art. 8.1 & 8.2 of ICBN). A month later, the species was described in full accordance with rules of botanical nomenclature in Russian scientific journal - Turczaninowia (Averyanov, 2010).'
'This statement initiated description of new monotype subgenus - Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss (2011, Ochid Digest, July, Aug., Sept.: 164). Actually P. canhii has indeed morphologically more or less intermediate position between species of section Parvisepalum Aver. et P.J.Cribb (subgenus Parvisepalum Karas. et Saito) and section Barbata (Kraenzl.) V.A.Albert et Boerge Pett. (subgenus Paphiopedilum). It undoubtedly deserves segregation in rank of separate supra-species taxon. However, we suppose that will be more reasonable regard such taxon in rank of section of type subgenus. Description of such section is proposed here. '
Then he goes on with the following:
'Paphiopedilum subgen. Paphiopedilum sect. Pygmaea Aver., sect.nov.
Syn.: Paphiopedilum subgen. Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss, 2011, Ochid Digest, 3: 164.
Type species: Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss.
Plantae pumilae. Folia 4-6(8) cm longa. Sepala synsepalumque ovata, alba, purpureo-striata. Petala lanceolata, acuminata, sepalis multo angustiora. Labium inflatum, subsphaericum, calceolatum, subtiliter texturatum. Staminodium magnum, late ovoideum, applanatum. Folia rigida, supra distincte tessellata, subtus intense purpureo-violacea, maculata.
Monotype section.
Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010 (15 June), in Aver., Orch. Viet. Ill. Surv. Orchidoideae, Turczaninowia, 13, 2: 92. - “Paphiopedilum canhii” Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010, Orchids, Mag. Amer. Orch. Soc., 79, 5: 288, nom. invalid.
'
So Megastaminodium starts already with a synonym, Pygmaea that is supposedly a section, and not a subgenus
I omit that in this long report, everything is 'extremely rare species', ' very rare endemic' even schoenorchis, holcoglossum amersianum and the like. Ad nauseum for the 'very rare' and the 'endemic' words.
M
Marc
Guest
I find it a very fitting name, looking forward to reading and seeing more about this plant.
B
Braem
Guest
That is how taxonomy gets clogged up .... And it is ludicrous. ... the plant does not fit in subgenus Parvisepalum and does not fit in subgenus Paphiopedilum ... thus ... what is the sense of putting a new section ?? where is he going to put it? in subgenus Parvisepalum or in subgenus Paphiopedilum???The only reasonable way to do...
Leonid Averyanov released a new report on the Russord Small Grants website which I quote some parts ( as citations):
' First publication of new species with illustrations and description appeared in May issue of American Orchid Society Magazine (Orchids) that immediately introduced species to broad circle of orchid lovers all over the world. Unfortunately, published name cannot be regarded as valid due to superfluous citation of two elements as a nomenclature type (Art. 8.1 & 8.2 of ICBN). A month later, the species was described in full accordance with rules of botanical nomenclature in Russian scientific journal - Turczaninowia (Averyanov, 2010).'
'This statement initiated description of new monotype subgenus - Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss (2011, Ochid Digest, July, Aug., Sept.: 164). Actually P. canhii has indeed morphologically more or less intermediate position between species of section Parvisepalum Aver. et P.J.Cribb (subgenus Parvisepalum Karas. et Saito) and section Barbata (Kraenzl.) V.A.Albert et Boerge Pett. (subgenus Paphiopedilum). It undoubtedly deserves segregation in rank of separate supra-species taxon. However, we suppose that will be more reasonable regard such taxon in rank of section of type subgenus. Description of such section is proposed here. '
Then he goes on with the following:
'Paphiopedilum subgen. Paphiopedilum sect. Pygmaea Aver., sect.nov.
Syn.: Paphiopedilum subgen. Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss, 2011, Ochid Digest, 3: 164.
Type species: Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss.
Plantae pumilae. Folia 4-6(8) cm longa. Sepala synsepalumque ovata, alba, purpureo-striata. Petala lanceolata, acuminata, sepalis multo angustiora. Labium inflatum, subsphaericum, calceolatum, subtiliter texturatum. Staminodium magnum, late ovoideum, applanatum. Folia rigida, supra distincte tessellata, subtus intense purpureo-violacea, maculata.
Monotype section.
Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010 (15 June), in Aver., Orch. Viet. Ill. Surv. Orchidoideae, Turczaninowia, 13, 2: 92. - “Paphiopedilum canhii” Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010, Orchids, Mag. Amer. Orch. Soc., 79, 5: 288, nom. invalid.
'
So Megastaminodium starts already with a synonym, Pygmaea that is supposedly a section, and not a subgenus
I omit that in this long report, everything is 'extremely rare species', ' very rare endemic' even schoenorchis, holcoglossum amersianum and the like. Ad nauseum for the 'very rare' and the 'endemic' words.
If it does not fit in an existing subgenus, it has to go in its own subgenus ... it is just as simple as that.
(besides the fact that his publication on a website is invalid)
Is Averyanov on this forum??
likespaphs
some call me brian
the article from Averyanov
http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/final_report_801
http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/final_report_801
No...correct me if I am wrong...
B
Braem
Guest
The taxonomic levels starting with genus (and going "downwards") are
genus
subgenus
section
subsection
species
subspecies
variety
form
(cultivar)
so if you describe a section, that section should fit into a subspecies. But if there is no subgenus that can accommodate the section. But if the entity (here Paph. canhii) does not fit into any of the existing subgenera, there is no point in describing it as a new section, because that section does not fit anywhere.
L
Lycaste53
Guest
Thanks,
it wasn´t my question, but I was quite confused about the levels before too, now, I understand the ascending order
Best regards, Gina
it wasn´t my question, but I was quite confused about the levels before too, now, I understand the ascending order
Best regards, Gina
B
Braem
Guest
Anytime ... that is what taxonomists/systematists are there for, and I wish more people would ask before talking bull and/or writing nonsense.
poozcard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 0
