Paph curtisii 'Dark Vader '

[GuRu]

Nice flower, looks like paph ciliolare.

Paphman, that's an interesting point and made me start a KEW search. As you know we agreed on KEW as the source of our plant names in another thread some weeks ago. The result is extraordinary and will make the confusion complete. Maybe some may moan now and say....no not this issue again??
KEW says Paphiopedilum curtisii is synonym of Paphiopedilum superbiens and therefore invalid. But Paphiopedilum ciliolare is a true and accepted species.

 

[blondie]

A very beautiful bloom foliage is gorgeous I think this could also be P. ciliolare

 

[DrLeslieEe]

In this case, it is very obvious by looking at the flowers that neither curtisii nor superbiens resemble each other in their extreme purest form, especially if the wild collected plants are compared. Petal stance, lip size ratio, leaf markings and flower color distribution all point to the fact that these are not the same flower.

Perhaps science will need to re-examine the evidence and data again to see if the current status is valid.

A differential and comparative examination against ciliolare might also be helpful.

 

[GuRu]

In this case, it is very obvious by looking at the flowers that neither curtisii nor superbiens resemble each other in their extreme purest form, especially if the wild collected plants are compared. Petal stance, lip size ratio, leaf markings and flower color distribution all point to the fact that these are not the same flower.

Perhaps science will need to re-examine the evidence and data again to see if the current status is valid.

A differential and comparative examination against ciliolare might also be helpful.

Leslie, on one hand I understand your statement and would agree completely, that P. curtisii and P. superbiens in their pure forms are different flowers. I, as a layman would understand better, if P. curtisii would be synonym to P. ciliolare o vice versa. But Stephen is on his sites in accordance with KEW and lists at least Paphiopedilum curtisii as variety to Paph. superbiens.
On the other hand I must say your statement is inconsequent, because if you follow KEW as the ne plus ultra source, I think you have to do that in all cases, if you agree with KEW's opinion or not.

 

[Guldal]

....if you follow KEW as the ne plus ultra source ...

Such a thing as a 'ne plus ultra source' in these matters is a piece of pure fiction, a chimera! Botany as a science is an evolving enterprise, moving foreward through discussions and disagreements between professionals. The complexity of this cannot - and should not! - be simplified by considering the judgement of one strand of this enterprise, of one institution with all its vested interest, as something carved in stone.
And, actually, when in doubt, what is much more interesting to consult than a list are the articles and monographs about the species, containing thorough descriptions and discussions of the botanical litterature and disagreements!

 

[DrLeslieEe]

It is only during AOS judging (and many international shows that I judge in), I have to follow the Kew designations for award comparison and evaluation. You are correct, Guru, that in these moments in time I must adhere to these restrictions of the show rules.

However, as Jens has pointed out, there are possibly other versions of reclassification of some species that may need to be re-examined further as we see more differences than similarity within the complex. That is what I meant in my previous statement.

Taxonomy is time dependent and ever changing. And our views will always change based on our experiences.

For example, I will always keep Neofinetia as my number one, despite it now officially known as Vanda.

 

[GuRu]

It is only during AOS judging (and many international shows that I judge in), I have to follow the Kew designations for award comparison and evaluation. You are correct, Guru, that in these moments in time I must adhere to these restrictions of the show rules.....

Just for understanding Leslie, that means Rick couldn't get this plant judged as P. cutisii but judged as P. superbiens or P. ciliolare?

.......Taxonomy is time dependent and ever changing. And our views will always change based on our experiences........

That's crystal clear but I think/thought KEW is always up to date and therefore the actual status?

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Yes presently the AOS awards curtisii as a variety of superbiens (like my superbiens var curtisii ‘Big Boy’ AM/AOS with 88 points). It will remain as such until Kew changes their stance.

In answering your second inquiry, Kew will reconsider a species ranking when new science and analysis provides them with logical undeniable proof, usually taking up to 3 years to implement the changes.

So in this case, I feel is just a waiting game.

 

[Guldal]

Kew will reconsider a species ranking when new science and analysis provides them with logical undeniable proof....

Now would they, indeed, be inclined to do so, even if it concerned a proposition or view forcefully held against one of their own high profiled scholars? Bearing in mind that a lot of taxonomical determination rests upon quite a bit of interpretative judgement, as there are no 100% waterproof method logically to determine f.ex. at what point a natural hybrid has established itself sufficiently as a species in its own right - also the eternally ongoing fight between 'lumperers' and 'spreaders' illustrates, that the deleneation between species and varieties is not always a clearcut and logical affair, as the opposing factions seem not always to rely on the same parameters or to weigh different criteria differently.

And Leslie, Karl Popper - and other falsificationists with him, would most probably have winced at that last, quoted utterance of yours, as they would uphold, that theories can be conclusively falsified, whereas they can never be established as true or even probably true whatever the evidence. A central tenet of theirs would be, that theory acceptance is always tentative, whilst on the other hand only theory rejection can be deceicive!

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Science can’t argue if the evidence is there, no matter who they have to step over to get there lol.

Remember when the world was flat?

 

[Guldal]

Remember when the world was flat?

But it is flat, isn't it?!