Leo and Myxodex,
In the 2nd edition of my paph book you can clearly see the differences between all these species. I show photos of each species and give habitat data and range for each one.
Taxonomists who lump species together are only expressing their own opinion, …nothing else. I think it does disservice to the entire field of botany when everyone else can see these differences, yet when one or two individuals tell us we are wrong. Doesn’t make sense to me.
From a work in progress:
“Furthermore, the concept of speciation needs to be straightforward. The idea of separating plants into specific categories, consistent with a number of constant and distinguishable similarities which they each share, is a long-established practice and has been a universally declared goal in botany. The process of separation is the result of the botanist’s increased clarity of the elements found to distinguish between different species. Both logic and stated declarations dictate that, if a group of similar-appearing species can be further separated into smaller groups, each with readily distinguishable, separate and consistent characteristics constant to their own kind, then it must be done. This defines the Test of Logic.” L.A.Birk,2007
Speaking of Web pictures…. There is no responsibility on the Internet. Anyone, regardless of their intellect or their knowledge, can post on chat sites like this one. Uninformed readers often accept as true, much of what they see and read on the ‘net.’ I see so many mis-identified photos and such bogus science and bad advice given on sites such as this one, that I seldom visit any.
An author of a book is a responsible person. He has done his research and he presents his facts for everyone to read. He signs his name to his book, and there it is, set in concrete, for everyone to see, forever! Quite different from the nameless posters on the Web.
I even read some idiot’s remark that, “Books are so yesterday.” Now that’s a statement from someone with a limited intellect, yet I’m afraid it’s what’s being taught in schools these days. Such a shame. While the Internet to me is like having the keys to the Library of Congress, one must have the basic knowledge to sort out truth from all the jetsam out there.
If you look at Fowlie’s P. tortipetalum, it looks much like P. bullenianum. In my opinion, it was simply a convoluted flower of that species and not a new sp.
Leo,
I’m with you my friend, I truly miss the old days of orchid collecting. It’s just too hard these days, to justify the great expense of time, money and energy to mount an expedition to some orchid habitat, only to take photographs of some species, new or old, you can’t identify because it isn’t in bloom. Such a shame!
Incidentally, a clarification of my last post which should have read:
P. bullenianum and P. volonteanum both come from Malaysian Borneo; the first from lowlands and the latter from higher elevs. I recall they are from Sarawak rather than from Sabah, but they may come from both.
This should have been the next sentence:
While P. volonteanum and P. hookerae are not included in the group with P. bullenianum types, they illustrate how different elevations and geographic locations can separate species.
Dr. Fowlie once told me that in his opinion, if every plant on earth had it's own name, there would be no confusion about identities. Some taxonomists take the opposite directions, but I side with those who can see the differences and want to name them separately. This prevents chaos.
Lance Birk