Paphiopedilum josianae Braem & Nimpoosri 2014

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

PaphMadMan

phytomanic
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
3
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.
 

mormodes

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
589
Reaction score
0
Location
N Calif, 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.
Jeeze this nomenclature stuff is so weird.
 
Last edited:

Rob Zuiderwijk

www.slipperiana.info
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
237
Reaction score
2
Location
The Netherlands
Where's the latin description? Doesn't it need one for valid publication of a name?
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.
 

Latest posts

Top