Rungsuriyanum

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Maybe I meant is CITES going to allow shipping of this new species? Or maybe a better way of asking, is the US going to allow this new species to cross its boarder? Just thinking back to hangianum, helenae, etc

Tyler

Ps thanks Eric! You still want a division of that Ralph Goldner?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
This is the basic CITES issue. It was collected in Laos. If Laos is a CITES signatory, flasks of these plants could conceivably be available relative soon. But all the plants I read about seem to be in China. How could collected plants have legally gotten from Laos to China? This would mean the plant will not be available at all (legally). Of course, if the Chinese can show that the plant is also native to any part of China (which they did with hangianum), the plants could be available in flask fairly quickly.
 
Flasks are not controlled by CITES. CITES rules do not apply to flasks. According to CITES, flasks are free to move internationally without any CITES documentation whatsoever. Flasks can come out of Laos, or China; it does not matter to CITES because CITES does not regulate or have any authority over sterile flasks.

Also, CITES is not an international ban agreement, as most people think, it's an international control agreement. Wild plants could legally get to China from Laos if both Laos and China are CITES signatory nations. Then, the Chinese importer needs to get a Chinese CITES appendix I import permit from the Chinese authorities and the Laos exporter needs to get a CITES export permit from the Laos authorities. These permits must be applied for and the reasons given for the proposed movement of the CITES appandix I plants. If it's for commercial purposes, the permit applications will likely be rejected. However, if the reason is for scientific study, or propagation, by credible entities, an approval at both ends is more likely. It takes months to get these approvals. I've imported blooming size CITES appendix I plants (Laelia jongheana, Laelia lobata), from Brazil (with the intention to resell - a commercial endeavour), by doing this; getting both a Canadian CITES appendix I import permit and a Brazilian CITES appendix I export permit. In my case, the plants were artificially propagated and nursery grown to maturity...and therefore, they were not in flask of course. The CITES rules allow for these exceptions as long as the authorities of the exporting country are satisfied that the ex-flask CITES appendix I plants were artificially propagated and not wild collected.

However, each individual country can also decide to add on extra restrictions, which CITES has nothing to do with. Some countries don't add more rules, prefering to hold true to the CITES objective of preserving rare plants. One of the ways that CITES tries to do that is by deliberately NOT restricting the movement of in-vitro seedlings because no wild collected plant can be made sterile and put into a flask. Therefore, anything in a sterile flask, must be artificially propagated, which is a good thing to encourage as those seedlings being available in the market place take the collection (for export), pressure off the wild plants, helping more wild plants to remain in the wild.
 
Cab anyone confirm if rungsuriyanum is #1 being artificially propagated and #2 if CITES has recognized this species?

Cant wait to see these available!!

Thanks

Tyler


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Impossible that has been artificially propagated...will have first plants artificially propagated minimum in 2 years or more...
 
Curious.... why is it impossible?
The date the species was described may have nothing to do with when the plants were collected and propagated.

Exactly. I think the first owners of these plants tried to get ahead of the curve. My personal opinion is that these will be available before any canhii's with paperwork.
 
They will both be very hard to get with any paperwork. Especially with the wanton removal of canhii from its environment. At least with rung. there was a major effort to collect them responsibly, i.e. to not just rip them out of the ground and sell in markets by the kilo, and to sell them to responsible growers and to propagate them.
 
At least in the USA flasks (invitro) are only exempt from CITES if the original propagation material is obtained from a legal source.

Exactly true. The US government has taken a step further and has put more emphasis on the legal collection of the original propagation material, or seeds. That is to say: was it legal in the endemic country, according to that countries domestic laws, to collect the propagation material in the first place? In effect, the US is upholding another country's laws and not looking past that towards the bigger picture of conservation.

CITES just wants to promote conservation and the survival of endangered species. By not having jurisdiction over in-vitro, flasked seedlings, they are trying to encourage artificial propagation and dissemination which will reduce the collection pressure on wild plants. Regardless of whether or not a government has given it's approval, there will always be poaching and an underground trade in desireable plants. Without any conservation and propagation, those species could become extinct in the wild due to overcollection and lost to obscurity in captivity, which is about as bad as complete extinction...a very sad thing. So, CITES deliberately does not make a distinction between legal acquisition of propagation material/seeds and illegal. It does not concern it'self with internal, domestic laws of member countries. It is an authority only when it comes to the international movement of CITES appendix listed plants. The end goal (with respect to horticulturally desireable species), is to get the artificially propagated plants out there, en-masse, making the value of the wild plants not worth the trouble.

Canada has not gone as far as the US and created these extra laws. We follow the spirit of CITES by allowing ANY new CITES appendix I plants into the country, without CITES docs, as long as they are in-vitro, which proves that they are artificiallyl propagated.
 
So maybe this is more a question of The Lacey Act instead of a CITES standpoint as it appears that CITES does not care as long as the collection was "legit" and flasks are not wild harvested. Unless any of you know of a species that pollinates and creates flasks all by its self ;-)

Tyler


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
Back
Top