Megastaminodium

[labskaus]

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???

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??

Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.

 

[Marc]

Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.

Please don't get that DNA thing started again oke:

 

[poozcard]

 

[Braem]

Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.

BUt they also say it has traits of subgenus parvisepalum ... go figure . ... and what is DNA going to give you ... it is well established that DNA Analysis does bring ANYTHING

Stick to good old alpha-taxonomy ... use your eyes and your brains ... that is how its works.