likespaphs
some call me brian
so recently i've seen two well known sellers offering both of these but i thought they were synonyms
can anyone help explain this?
can anyone help explain this?
Braem's conclusion, Paph chamberlainianum is the correct name for all the plants being called victoria-regina. The species victoria-regina is something different, the type specimen have been lost in one World War or another. What ever the species was the Low was describing as victoria-regina is not chamberlainianum, nor like chamberlainianum. Clearly quite different than chamberlainianum. It is either a lost/extinct species, or victoria-regina is a species that was described later as something else. Perhaps Paph moquettianum or Paph liemianum. Since these names have type specimens, they should stand and use of victoria- regina should be abandoned completely. Paph chamberlainianum is the name that has a type specimen, and is the only one to use. Here Braem disagrees with Cribb and many feel Braem is correct.
Bob Wellenstein said:Paph. victoria-reginae and chamberlainianum were both "described" in consecutive issues of Gardener's Chronicles ib advertisements by Sanders for an incoming shipment of plants to be auctioned. He had not seen the plants or flowers in person. It has been surmised that it became politically expedient for him to name a plant after Chamberlain, so he named the same plant twice and then just stated that the first plants died in transit. If this is true then the first naming, V-R stands as correct. I far prefer chamberlainianum, and felt that assuming Sanders did this without hard evidence simply based on his history of similar deceits was improper and chamberlainianum should stand. The last time I saw Phil Cribb I made this case, and he said he too preferred chamberlainianum, but that they had evidence in Sanders archived letters and journals written by Sanders himself that he had one plant and two names. As a result V-R stands as the first description (advertisements such as this were grandfathered in as valid descriptions when the code of botanical nomenclature was formalized). As far as I know no credible (and even some incredible and uncredible) taxonomist believes that the two names are anything but synonyms. Why the registrar still accepts both is a puzzle, I pointed this out to the previous registrar ten years ago.
I don't think that Guido is on this forum anymore, but confusion is.
where did he go? Wasnt he here just like a few weeks ago?
wow, this is contradictory. It certainly looks like they changed the name of the species. The first brief description of chamberlainianum sounds nothing like a cochlopetalum, more like Paph. x kimballianum. I wish I had a time machine.
According to the membership listing Guido was last on 09/23/2011. So it wasn't that long ago.
Enter your email address to join: