- Jun 28, 2006
- Reaction score
- Seattle, Wa.
I agree with this 100%, but the problem is that the "experts" often have strong differences of opinion. Determining the "true" name or relationship is tenuous at best, just look at the differences between Cribb and Braem. Both have valid perspectives but different conclusions. The bottom line is that none of them are certain and the science changes over time.Roy said:Leo, you have again said all that needs to be said. So many arguments occur on orchids when " popular figures" in the orchid world promote their theories, with illustrations, in widely distributed publications and because of their notoriety, have many believing what they say is gospel and the actual 'expert' finds it difficult to get the correct message across. This where the 'true' name gets lost and false hybrids registered.
The reason I brought up the Asher argument was that 1) they visited the habitat, and 2) noticed the close proximity of Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. (across the valley on different strata).
There certainly are morphological differences, and without being able to go back in time we will never know for sure. With the close relationship of Paph primulinum and its var. purpurascens, it seems evident that at some point there was an ancestor that wasn't albinistic. Whether it was Paph liemianum or not will probably never be answered for sure, but if it isn't then what is the ancestor?