Taxonomy nonsenses or change the wrong rules

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If your account is accurate, unprofessional is an understatement. Some could say untruthful or even slanderous.

Regards, Mick
Yes .. and I have never found out why they are doing this. Jack asked me to interpret the rules. That is all I do .... It would be fine if Koopowitz (whom I asked to write a foreword for Braem & Chiron) would have just said: "OK, I don't agree with Braem". That is fine ... but for some reasons ...
The same with Baruk and Hakone ... why are they after me? I never met them, I never had ANY dealing with them ... They are just out to start a fight. I have never met any of the two. Now Baruk is known to have pulled the same in France on Guy Chiron. Now, I have been told Hakone is a medical doctor working in Berlin ... I never met him .... I never had any dealings with him or Baruk. What is their problem?

But I admit that this passage from Harold's book did hurt me ... and it is slanderous. Harold doesn't know what the story of the Schlechter Institute is .... and never asked me either ... so all it is, is "hear say" .... And with that, how can they expect to finish the case ... When I am asked I explain at conferences, I am forced to do so ... . And I don't go about asking where Harold got his plants from ... and whether he writes his articles in University or at home ... etc. etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If your account is accurate, unprofessional is an understatement. Some could say untruthful or even slanderous.

Regards, Mick

I have read so many Paper/Publication in my life, for more than 1/2 of Paper is garbage.
 
Most interesting.

From a parallel universe... When I was trained on the animal code circa 1998, there was mention of FAX as publication (I'd have to look it up to see if it was accepted or not). At that time, I don't think there was anything about digital publication (e-mailing a pdf etc) as that was just coming into fashion, but Christian Thompson at USNM said it was to be included in the next code.

I recall an article on common usage too which would speak to the callosum/crossii issue if they were animals (although I do believe it exists in the plant code too). If a name is in "common usage" and "established" for an extended period, it may take priority over a previously published name, however, no means to get such a name integrated permanently was firmly in place. The name pretty much would require a champion to keep pushing to beat "real" priority.

Even more complicated, we have the current codes, but I guess we'd have to look back to the code in use at time of publication to know for sure in these cases, right, Guido? So if FAX is now excluded in the current code, but not in the code when tig/mark were described, it's up to interpretation of whether FAX is publication if not specifically mentioned.
 
Most interesting.

From a parallel universe... When I was trained on the animal code circa 1998, there was mention of FAX as publication (I'd have to look it up to see if it was accepted or not). At that time, I don't think there was anything about digital publication (e-mailing a pdf etc) as that was just coming into fashion, but Christian Thompson at USNM said it was to be included in the next code.

I recall an article on common usage too which would speak to the callosum/crossii issue if they were animals (although I do believe it exists in the plant code too). If a name is in "common usage" and "established" for an extended period, it may take priority over a previously published name, however, no means to get such a name integrated permanently was firmly in place. The name pretty much would require a champion to keep pushing to beat "real" priority.

Even more complicated, we have the current codes, but I guess we'd have to look back to the code in use at time of publication to know for sure in these cases, right, Guido? So if FAX is now excluded in the current code, but not in the code when tig/mark were described, it's up to interpretation of whether FAX is publication if not specifically mentioned.
You ar right that there is a difference between the animnal and plant code. And indeed at the time of markianum/tigrinum there was no mention of fax inhibition or no reference to digital publication.

The crossii/callosum issue was published in an extensive article in SIDA by me and the late Dr. Senghas of Heidelberg University.
Braem, G. J. & Senghas, K-H. (2000) - The intriguing case of Cypripedium crossii Morren, its priority over Cypripedium callosum Reichenbach fil. and its transfer to the genus Paphiopedilum Pfitzer – Sida, 19(2): 249-255.

There was and is is no provision for "common usage" or "established" in the ICBN.

11.3. For any taxon from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, 57, or 59 apply. Thus the only article that is to be followed is:

11.3. For any taxon from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, 57, or 59 apply.

(and 14, 11.7, and the other exceptions listed do not apply)

the earliest legitimate name for "callosum" is "crossii" and as those names were published at the same level (species) crossii has priority. That case is as clear as water.

The problem I have with the current code is that it includes man-made hybrids. I think that is wrong (and I believe to have heard Hooker fil. and Thiselton-Dyer turn around in their grave after thoes block-heads of the Botanical Committee did that.

And yes, one has to take the valid code at the time of publication. You can't apply the 2010 Code to a publication prior to 2010.
 
I'm still trying to figure out the changes in genus Phragmipedium. I still can't keep it all straight in my head. But one thing is for certain, I will always think of a purpurata as a Laelia, not a Sophronitis or a Cattleya. But I'm not a taxonomist and I don't have to be correct.
 
I'm still trying to figure out the changes in genus Phragmipedium. I still can't keep it all straight in my head. But one thing is for certain, I will always think of a purpurata as a Laelia, not a Sophronitis or a Cattleya. But I'm not a taxonomist and I don't have to be correct.
What changes in the genus Phragmipedium? ... Actually I put kovachii in its own section named Schluckebieria (the maiden-name of my wife), and there have been some new species ... and if you refer to the caudatum group: its is very easy

1) caudatum = caudatum
2) lindenii = lindenii
3) exstaminodium = exstaminodium
4) warzewiczianum = what has hitherto been called "wallisii"
5) popowii = what has hitherto been called warzewiczianum

I am just writing a new article (yes, out of my home ... well no, actually the house belongs to my wife ... so Koopowitz was wrong on that too) .. but I am not letting the cat out of the sack ... and I am not convinced of the validity of some of the species ... but that is for later. The article will be published in January (I think).

And by the way, I agree that Lalelia purpurata is "Laelia" ... putting Cattleya, laela, Sophronitis together was another nonsense of the molecular artists.

And who say that taxonomists ar not allowed to make mistakes. I was once asked in California whteher my Latin was good enough to write diagnosis for plants. I explaned that the Code calls for a Latin diagnosis, but nowhere does it say that the grammar of Latin has to be correct. (But don't worry, my diagnosises (is that the correct plural?) are checked by an expert in Latin.

The former Miss Schluckebier is calling me for sklave work in the kitchen, so I will refrain on looking for typos.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top