True species

[paphioboy]

wow. Its amazing what the people on ST do for a living...

 

[poozcard]

There is a misunderstanding here ... As far as I can remember, I never claimed that line-bred species are no longer species ... (and if I have, that was a mistake).

Noted.
Thank you.

 

[Rick]

At least 1 flaw in the analysis of the award data base is knowing how many generations of line breeding were incurred for the largest entry. Since there have been periodic infusions of wild stock over the last 2 centuries, it is possible that the record flowers may be from a wild plant (although not likely).


Hey Wasn't rothschildianum 'Rex' a wild import (and not a line bred)?

 

[poozcard]

There is a long discussion in this topic.
In case someone would like to take a break.
My friend just visited Thailand west border forest and shared some of photos here: http://www.pantip.com/cafe/jatujak/topic/J10626242/J10626242.html

 

[Braem]

I don't think you said that either Guido. But that was inferred or questioned by others, and so I used the awards records simply as a data base to see if I could find a measurable difference in (at least overall flower size) line bred vs wild plants to support that hypothesis.

At least 1 flaw in the analysis of the award data base is knowing how many generations of line breeding were incurred for the largest entry. Since there have been periodic infusions of wild stock over the last 2 centuries, it is possible that the record flowers may be from a wild plant (although not likely).

I think the Paph. delenatii case is a good example of what happens in line breeding. There was NO variation at all. I am not saying that this will be the case with all species ... but it is interesting to note.

 

[paphioboy]

There is a long discussion in this topic.
In case someone would like to take a break.
My friend just visited Thailand west border forest and shared some of photos here: http://www.pantip.com/cafe/jatujak/topic/J10626242/J10626242.html

Wow... Thanks for sharing.. Anybody knows what the terrestrial with spotted leaves is? I was thinking Nephelaphyllum, but the flower doesn't look typical...

 

[valenzino]

Wow... Thanks for sharing.. Anybody knows what the terrestrial with spotted leaves is? I was thinking Nephelaphyllum, but the flower doesn't look typical...

Its Sirindhornia mirabilis,nice leaved terrestrial...like it.
Another link about it here:

http://www.orchidswiki.com/t867-sirindhornia-mirabilis-ha-pedersen-suksathan

 

[callosum]

wild hybrid

picture no 39 40 41 42 are wild hybrid of Sirindhonias

 

[Rick]

I think the Paph. delenatii case is a good example of what happens in line breeding. There was NO variation at all. I am not saying that this will be the case with all species ... but it is interesting to note.

Well the extreme plant ("Hat trick") was 38% bigger than the normal wild range (at least for that in Cribb's book). That would probably be statistically significant from norm. But the mean of all awarded plants is right on the upper edge of wild normal range (no variation).

From my limited experience in taking plants to judging, judges don't really want to consider a plant for scoring at all if its not at least at the top edge of the metrics for the taxanomic description.

Given that awards are only for the exceptional plants there must be 95% more in collections that aren't even close to being outside of the taxonomic (normal) description.

 

[poozcard]

Given that awards are only for the exceptional plants there must be 95% more in collections that aren't even close to being outside of the taxonomic (normal) description.

Good point!
Then what should taxonomy do?
1. Making description for those majority in the middle.
2. Making description for those majority in the middle + remark for those minority on the edge

 

[Rick]

Good point!
Then what should taxonomy do?
1. Making description for those majority in the middle.
2. Making description for those majority in the middle + remark for those minority on the edge

Now this is my opinion (which I know is not universally shared).

It should reflect the description representing 90 to 95% of the population as a whole.

Such descriptions should include geographic range and OPTIMALLY should include pollinator description.

Over the years there are still valid names for plants that are based on single observations (not bell shaped curves of population characteristics). There are names being held for plants with unknown or fraudulent geographic range info. Very few pollinators for paphs are known at the specific level.

I guess my continuous harping on the pollinator deal is that (as you have discovered) there is no one metric that completely defines a species Paph. The potential array of influential characters that we know about is huge, and we only use a very limited sensual array to understand paph flowers. It is well known that insects see AND smell things differently than we do. So rather than trying to constantly come up with a new metric to measure, just use the bugs as a "black box" for telling us what the specific plants are.

It's not unlike the toxicology business I'm in now. We get effluents in from factory waste treatment plants. There are hundreds or thousands of potential toxic chemicals in any given sample. Some you know, because they are put in intact. Some are the byproducts of the treatment plant. To measure for every single chemical is an astronomical project that is very expensive, but in our lab we put water fleas and minnows into the water samples and see if they live or die. Grow or reproduce. If they do OK we don't care whats in the water (its safe). They are biological black boxes that assess the total impact of the chemistry of the water. If they are impaired that justifies the time and $$ to start investigating the cause by analytical chemistry.

Anyway cost and effort does factor into taxonomy. Who has the time, strength, and money to live in the jungles of Thailand or Borneo for months on end? Jungle work can also be very dangerous too. Disease, snakes, tigers, elephants, head hunters, terrorists, bandits, orchid collectors (back in the 1800's orchid collectors would fight and kill each other in the forests for cutthroat business).

Things are a lot different now with planes/helicopters, medicines, digital cameras, GPS.... But travel logistics are still very difficult and expensive. For as much as we've shrunk the world, it's surprising how big it still is when you get in the forests.

So I guess the question is, how much is it worth it to you to know exactly where one plant starts and where a different one takes over?

 

[Braem]

Ok Rick, but let me clarify a few things:

1) in taxonomy, the rule of priority prevails, thus if one has a new plant (even one), one describes ... if one waits until one has seen 90 to 95% of the population, there will never be any descriptions.

2) the geographic range of the species is not always known ... one could give the geographical details of the population from where the plant was taken.

3) even if you put these requirements in the rules, you can not do anything about poeple "saying less than the truth". I would see that in 90% of the descriptions of orchids, the true origin was not given.

4) let me do the Latin "thing" to clarify. The rules state that you need a Latin diagnosis, and that you have to include the origin of the type specimen. The rules do not say that the Latin diagnosis must be in good Latin grammar, and do not say that you can't be mistaken (or lie) about the origin of the plant. In both cases, the description remains valid and effective.

And I didn't even start with the pollinator issue .... do I need to recall the Angraecum sesquipedale saga?

 

[Rick]

Ok Rick, but let me clarify a few things:

1) in taxonomy, the rule of priority prevails, thus if one has a new plant (even one), one describes ... if one waits until one has seen 90 to 95% of the population, there will never be any descriptions.

2) the geographic range of the species is not always known ... one could give the geographical details of the population from where the plant was taken.

3) even if you put these requirements in the rules, you can not do anything about poeple "saying less than the truth". I would see that in 90% of the descriptions of orchids, the true origin was not given.

4) let me do the Latin "thing" to clarify. The rules state that you need a Latin diagnosis, and that you have to include the origin of the type specimen. The rules do not say that the Latin diagnosis must be in good Latin grammar, and do not say that you can't be mistaken (or lie) about the origin of the plant. In both cases, the description remains valid and effective.

And I didn't even start with the pollinator issue .... do I need to recall the Angraecum sesquipedale saga?

I can thouroghly relate to your points Guido. It's all we can, to do what we can, with what we have.

The Angraecum issue is interesting, and kind of relates to my last points about time/expense/ and technology.

Who had the time and money to sit in a tree in a Madagascan jungle for days or months on end to witness a moth visit. Now with motion detector miniture photo equipment (technology Darwin didn't have 100 years ago), robot does survey, while biologist on ground in tent drinking coffee. Relative cost compared to 1905 is fractional.

For some applications you can use sticky traps near or on the flowers to trap bugs. This doesn't neccesarily tell which species are actually moving pollen versus just visiting the flower for fun. Anyway did you have a chance to look up the Bansiger paper. I'm sure that study wasn't cheap, but its got good ideas for slippers.

 

[Rick]

in taxonomy, the rule of priority prevails, thus if one has a new plant (even one), one describes ... if one waits until one has seen 90 to 95% of the population, there will never be any descriptions.

How do you know if a single plant is new, or just a variant within a population unless you conduct a population survey?

The balance between the two extremes is the crux of the issue. There has always been a huge race for the "new species" and now we are covered up with tons of useless names.

There is a similar debate among fisheries biologists as to what constitutes a reasonable sample size to describe characters of a population. Some go as low as 50 fish some as high as 1000. Consensus is around 100. So there is a lot of tedious measuring every time I go in the field to sample, but I get a more accurate profile of the population condition, and not just the accidents.

 

[poozcard]

I read some text from Cribb 1988. He mentioned that some taxonomists believe that Paph and Phrag are fly-pollinated while Cyp is bee-pollinated.

Early this year, I found 3 times this one stuck in the pouch of exuls.

Questions:

1. Is it bee or fly?
2. Why it die in the pouch?
3. Is it really a pollinator of exul?

 

[Erythrone]

2 wings (1 pair): diptera (fly relatives)

Bees, hornet, bumblebees and relatives: 4 wings (2 pairs).

Not sure what you insect is... Seems to be a hymenoptera.... but wich one?

 

[Braem]

I can thouroghly relate to your points Guido. It's all we can, to do what we can, with what we have.

The Angraecum issue is interesting, and kind of relates to my last points about time/expense/ and technology.

Who had the time and money to sit in a tree in a Madagascan jungle for days or months on end to witness a moth visit. Now with motion detector miniture photo equipment (technology Darwin didn't have 100 years ago), robot does survey, while biologist on ground in tent drinking coffee. Relative cost compared to 1905 is fractional.

For some applications you can use sticky traps near or on the flowers to trap bugs. This doesn't neccesarily tell which species are actually moving pollen versus just visiting the flower for fun. Anyway did you have a chance to look up the Bansiger paper. I'm sure that study wasn't cheap, but its got good ideas for slippers.

Well having been in the tropics myself, I tell you that I won't sit and wait for a bug to come by.

 

[Braem]

I read some text from Cribb 1988. He mentioned that some taxonomists believe that Paph and Phrag are fly-pollinated while Cyp is bee-pollinated.

Early this year, I found 3 times this one stuck in the pouch of exuls.

Questions:

1. Is it bee or fly?
2. Why it die in the pouch?
3. Is it really a pollinator of exul?

That seems to be a wasp of some kind ... and the fact that is was in the pouch does NOT prove that it is the pollinator.

 

[poozcard]

Well having been in the tropics myself, I tell you that I won't sit and wait for a bug to come by.

Come to thailand next time Prof.Braem

The paph site is not far from the famous beach of Krabi/Phuket/Phangna

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[poozcard]

That seems to be a wasp of some kind ... and the fact that is was in the pouch does NOT prove that it is the pollinator.

I agree.
It might die in the pouch because it was stuck as the 2 holes on both sides of staminode are too narrow.