New paph species canhii

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

baodai

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
http://www.hoalanvietnam.org/Article.asp?ID=681

It is supprising me that everyone want to put their name on this article, I wish they can wait to find out more info about this plant before officially publish it ...
Here is one of the unknow info: location ... the article wrote "Distribution locally endemic to northwest Vietnam" that is large area, It could be in Lao also .... I can grow them from my backyard and when it flowers I can say it is from my location? ...
(By Leonid V. Averyanov, Olaf Gruss, Canh Chu Xuan, Loc Phan Ke, Dang Bui and Hiep Nguyen Tien), I can tell you this, These getelmen don't see this plant on the wild. It is discorvered by a wild collector (who name is not even mention on this article). Canh, Huyen and Phong bought it from market

"Ecology Mixed coniferous and broad-leaved primary forests on rocky limestone at elevations about 4,920 feet (1,500 m) above sea level. In shady places at the base of vertical limestone cliffs on deep soilsrich in humus near tops of ridges." This is a joke, They don't know where it's discorvered but they know it Ecology.
I can't wait for the official publish in AOS
Finally, I'm glad i live in USA where i can speak freely about this issue and not afraid someone put me in jail for my freedom of speak
BD
 

Hakone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
259
It is right, may be the plant grow in Laos . He buy the plant from market Ha Noi
 

labskaus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
2
Location
Germany
Interesting comments, Baodai. The article suggested to me that Canh actually discovered the plants in the wild.
I wonder if somebody else is also preparing a manuscript with a desription of this "species", otherwise I wouldn't know why the authors would publish this article prior to the offcial publication. Worried to loose a race?
I also share your feelings about this article beeing a bit pre-mature. We know the great field work Averyanov did in the past and with him as an author I would have expected more than guesswork in this article.
If I was peer-reviewing this article, I would have a few remarks to the authors.
If Baodai is right and the authors haven't seen the habitat, they shouldn't mention it. From experience and the available data I still think there is a good chance this plant is a hybrid. The authors discard this possibility just too easily. Also, the flower looks distoretd to me. I would wish for more flowers to base a description on. Finally, the authors aren't able to place their new species in any section/subgenus of Paphiopedilum. This is a strong argument towards my previous points. Hey guys, have you ever got hold of one plant of your new species? Maybe a piece of leave material? Ever heard of DNA analysis? :mad: Not happy.
 

valenzino

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
829
Reaction score
3
Bodai,Canh said you he bought it on Market?Or are just voices going around?
Cause if you are shure about what you are sayng its ok,if not,its not nice to say he is a lier...and all things you are sayng can be false...and infos on the article can be true cause if canh have found the plant he have seen the habitat and is better not to say the exact location to protect someway from foreigners(or even locals that live outside te country) that send collectors for bussiness...
About article I agree with Carsten that right thing to do is DNA before official description.The article is usefull to the peoples that described it to have a first name and to better promote further researches....unfortunately will be also usefull to some peoples to do some underground bussiness....
 
J

John Boy

Guest
My gosh!!!

how ugly is that!? Doesn't look like a new species, but like an accident to me...

But that's just me!
 
E

Ernie

Guest
I am certainly intrigued by all this. And, as much as I respect all of you (Baodai, Hakone, Labskaus, Valenzino, etc who seem to have first hand knowledge about this entity), I thinkwe are sort of at the mercy of the authors unless someone can say without a doubt otherwise. Maybe Olaf will speak up. Hopefully. I agree that we'd expect a new species to fit into one of the established sections. Shoot, maybe it's in a previously unknown section? I do think the leaves and flower could suggest an intersection hybrid between some Barbata and a Brachy or Parvi? Apparently, there are more than just one of these, so it's not an isolated freak.

As far as DNA goes (I'll just say "molecules", since all phylogenetic analyses don't automatically mean DNA)... molecules don't simply get shoved into a computer and some software then spits out an identification. Humans do the actual analysis, or have command of software that does, so even with molecular info, the determination on what to call the taxon with those molecules is biased. Molecules, chosen properly, have the potential to indicate realtionships and some shared material between species could indicate a hybrid, but whoever does the analysis can also interpret the data as "it's different than all other Paphs, it was collected, it's a new species/nat hybrid." In this case, i'd defer to age old species concepts (which are always contested)- if a stable natural population is present and is sustainable with naturally available pollinators (spatially and temporally) to produce fertile offspring, pow- new species. Plants are weird though with the whole interbreeding thing. x wenshanense is a perfect example- mom's version of Conco-bellatulum, BUT we know x wenshanense can also be back crosses of either parent in endless combination only limited by evolutionary time- it's evolving before our eyes, and ages from now, it might stabilize. Maybe not. My personal feeling on this weirdness as it applies to horticulturally valuable taxa (ie Orchids) is that: if it is a phenotypically stable natural population and produces fertile offspring over time, it might be best to recognize it at the specific rank unless we know exactly what the parents are and in what proportion. Why??? When someone eventually breeds with this creature (they'd probably be really drunk to do so), it will be convenient to track is hybridization that way. Simple. Think of all the messes we have now with moquettianum, anitum, leucochilum that are/were once varieties of other species BUT lend tangible traits to offspring. RHS is now elevating some of these to species rank and there's a historic mess of confusion. If moquettianum was always moquettianum (IMO as it should've been) and not glauco var. moq, we'd have better record of its breeding history. Pinocchio would be Pinocchio and not Clouds Pink... whatever (prim x moq) is.

Bottom line is we need to know more about this beast before we attack the authors or question its rank. Who needs a Master's/PhD project???

Just my $0.02.

-Ernie
 

Roy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
2
Location
Halls Gap,Western Victoria, Australia
Interesting, I saw a pic of this plant posted in a forum some time ago and suggested it was a new species and I was politely told I didn't know what I was talking about. Funny about that isn't it.
 

baodai

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
284
Reaction score
8
Ernie,
Let's do all the basic first before we can move forward with DNA etc ...
To me location of the species is important, because we can find out what other paph's growing with it. (Does this make DNA comparasion easier?).
You wrote "Bottom line is we need to know more about this beast before we attack the authors or question its rank". The article are ready published and there are incorrect or untold on this article, I made comments base on this article.
Valenzino,
We bought some plants from the same patch with Huyền, Cảnh and Phong. So, I can almost guarantee that this plant was not discorvered by Cảnh, Unless (Leonid V. Averyanov, Olaf Gruss, Canh Chu Xuan, Loc Phan Ke, Dang Bui or Hiep Nguyen Tien) went to the location themself, (then it is still discovered by the wild collector, I wish they mention his name on this article, I witheld the name and make more comments when they officially published the article on AOS) ... Where is the habitat pictures if they went to the site??
BD
 

labskaus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
2
Location
Germany
Bottom line is we need to know more about this beast before we attack the authors or question its rank.
-Ernie

Ernie, I just believe the authors might need to know more about the beast themselves.

I fully agree with you that any DNA analyses should be carried out in conjunction with other analyses, and that proper data interpretation is crucial.

Roy might be right and we're seeing a new species here, but afaik we're still talking about one funny flower and a couple of non-blooming plants. That's a bloody small sample for a floral analysis. I mean, it was Averyanov who published Paph. hiepii. History repeating? I hope I'm wrong.
 

shaw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
51
Reaction score
3
i dun blame author for this issue and ignore the other detail...... look at how plants are being reg at RHS. whom would have the right first? they would all rush through it till the dust is settle ... then the next author would do the corrections and so on so for name start to surface it's the normal practice...
example - paph markianum or would u call it paph tigeranum ? fowlie or HK versions?
 

Hakone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
259
Ernie,
Let's do all the basic first before we can move forward with DNA etc ...
To me location of the species is important, because we can find out what other paph's growing with it. (Does this make DNA comparasion easier?).
You wrote "Bottom line is we need to know more about this beast before we attack the authors or question its rank". The article are ready published and there are incorrect or untold on this article, I made comments base on this article.
Valenzino,
We bought some plants from the same patch with Huyền, Cảnh and Phong. So, I can almost guarantee that this plant was not discorvered by Cảnh, Unless (Leonid V. Averyanov, Olaf Gruss, Canh Chu Xuan, Loc Phan Ke, Dang Bui or Hiep Nguyen Tien) went to the location themself, (then it is still discovered by the wild collector, I wish they mention his name on this article, I witheld the name and make more comments when they officially published the article on AOS) ... Where is the habitat pictures if they went to the site??
BD

There is about 20 plants
 
E

Ernie

Guest
Baodai,

I agree with you. We have the article linked above, correct or incorrect. Until something more is published, we're stuck.
If someone argues that a specimen claimed to have been wild-collected was actually bought at market, I find that interesting, but still need more info. All else equal, unless I was there, published info is correct until proven otherwise. Still, plenty of peer-reviewed info is garbage.

-Ernie
 

NYEric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
49,525
Reaction score
731
Location
New York City Apartment
Man, the truth is relative. We all should know this. This is the same as Pk except that the issue of crossing borders w/ the plant is not at issue, as far as I know. If the collector doesn't want attention by being credited that's their option. But, if the credit is sought Canh, would have difficulties w/ any dispute w/out specific location info. Just my 1cent.
 
E

Ernie

Guest
Yeah, Eric, but I also see the point of protecting the site to prevent overcollection. That would also negate his corner on the market. :) Both sad but very true.

-Ernie
 

tenman

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
300
Location
Ohio
I wonder if is does end up being a species, what it'll be named when a proper publication is issued as the one in the link is invalid as there is no drawing, an absolute requirement not superseded by the inclusion of photos.

Paph.buttugliensis?
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
2
Location
Richmond, VA
I wonder if is does end up being a species, what it'll be named when a proper publication is issued as the one in the link is invalid as there is no drawing, an absolute requirement not superseded by the inclusion of photos.

Paph.buttugliensis?
At the end of that webpage it states that it will be published in the May 2010 issue of Orchids, presumably with all of the necessary items required for a valid species description.
 

tenman

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
300
Location
Ohio
At the end of that webpage it states that it will be published in the May 2010 issue of Orchids, presumably with all of the necessary items required for a valid species description.

Oh, darn! And I had such a good name picked out for it!
 
E

Ernie

Guest
To overanalyze for silliness...

I sort of think it would correctly be Paph. buttugliense per some rule of Latin grammar, but am not entirely sure. :) Most (all?) Paphs with that etymology have -ense (malipoense, vietnamense, hainanense, celebense...), right?

Anyway, the tenman's name would imply it originated from an ugly butt, which may or may not be true. Are markets (or jungles) called ugly butts in Vietnam and China? :) Maybe Paph. buttuglioides would be better? Translated roughly a 'Paph resembling an ugly butt'. ? :rollhappy: So this is what's called a formal emmendation to tenman's original description. :)

Is a botanical sketch mandatory for plants??? My experience is in the Animal Code (which ended formally circa 2001, but I still consider it a hobby I can't devote enough time to) in which a drawing was not mandatory, but certainly encouraged! Of course, the newest code might say I'm wrong, or my memory could be bad. Most Corydoras descriptions do have drawings, but some newer ones described from aquarium specimens do not- sometimes having a picture of a cute little catfish swimming in an aquarium of neon tetras with the type locality as New Jersey, USA (Corys are from South America).

-Ernie

I wonder if is does end up being a species, what it'll be named when a proper publication is issued as the one in the link is invalid as there is no drawing, an absolute requirement not superseded by the inclusion of photos.

Paph.buttugliensis?
 
Top