Paphiopedilum josianae Braem & Nimpoosri 2014

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by quietaustralian, Jun 9, 2014.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Jun 9, 2014 #1

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    quietaustralian

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Thái Nguyên, Việt Nam
  2. Jun 9, 2014 #2

    SlipperKing

    SlipperKing

    SlipperKing

    Madd Virologist

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    18,700
    Likes Received:
    96
    Location:
    Pearland TX
    Interesting Mick. Thanks for bring this to light.
     
  3. Jun 9, 2014 #3

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Thanks for the link. I knew it had happened, but couldn't provide proof.
     
  4. Jun 9, 2014 #4

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    phytomanic

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin USA
    Interesting. I thought it was a glaring omission in Braem's recent book that he dismissed all varieties of Paph. concolor except the album without even mentioning them, saying numerous varieties had been described but none of the subspecies or varieties differs sufficiently from the nominal form to warrant autonomous status. Better late than never I guess, but it makes me wonder what else was left out of the book just to make a bigger impression with separate publication later, and spur sales of a revised edition in a few years.
     
  5. Jun 9, 2014 #5

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,089
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    Finally, thanks for sharing. Now if only we can get some of these here. :)
     
  6. Jun 9, 2014 #6

    mormodes

    mormodes

    mormodes

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N Calif, USA
    Where's the latin description? Doesn't it need one for valid publication of a name?
     
  7. Jun 9, 2014 #7

    Erythrone

    Erythrone

    Erythrone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Eastern Townships, Quebec
  8. Jun 9, 2014 #8

    mormodes

    mormodes

    mormodes

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N Calif, USA
    Jeeze this nomenclature stuff is so weird.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2014
  9. Jun 9, 2014 #9

    mormodes

    mormodes

    mormodes

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N Calif, USA
  10. Jun 10, 2014 #10

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    www.slipperiana.info

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    In my opinion Dr. Braem didn't need to write a latin description because he wasn't describing a new taxon. He was elevating an existing taxon to the species level and gave it a new name. Hence the latin addition "stat. et nomen nov." after the name. And as required he mentioned the basionym for the new name.

    My two cents.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white