# Phrag. caudatum complex



## Drorchid (Jun 21, 2012)

I posted this in a different thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate here:



SlipperFan said:


> So what will happen when they do DNA of Phrags?! It would be nice if they could clear this up.



DNA would not solve anything in this case. Unlike with some other orchids, it is very clear what the individual "taxa" are, there is just a lot of confusion/fighting of what to call/name each taxa; it all boils down to priority. Who ever named a species first, gets priority. Unfortunately the individual taxonomists are unclear of which names gets priority. 

DNA does help when we are unclear to say within what species a certain population belongs, this is usually the case when we are dealing with a a very variable species that grows in a large area. Sometimes we are dealing with 2 distinct species that have introgressed with each other. An example of such would be the Paph. godefroyae/leuchochilum/ang-thong/niveum complex. In this case DNA would be helpful as when an individual population is found that does not really fit with either species (say an ang-thong type) it will tell you to which species it belongs, or if it is of hybrid origin. 

In the case of Phrag. caudatum and it's relatives it is clear that there are 5 distinct taxa, that are all very easily distinguishable from each other. In my opinion we are dealing with 3 separate species.

The first is: *Phrag caudatum*. This species is native to Peru and Ecuador.

The second is the lighter colored species: *Phrag. lindenii*. It has 2 distinct subspecies. As the subspecies with no pouch was described first, the name of the species had priority and it should be Phrag. lindenii. The other subspecies within this species is Phrag. lindenii subspecies wallisii. Unlike Phrag. lindenii subspecies lindenii it has a pouch. Both subspecies are native to mainly Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador (also found in a little area of Northern Peru).

The third species (and this one has caused the most confusion when it comes to naming it), is native to Central America (Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras): *Phrag. warscewiczii*. It has the darkest flowers of any of the long-petaled species. I am going by Christenson, and calling it Phrag. warscewiczii. Again there are two distinct subspecies. The first has normal flowers and is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies warscewiczii (synonym of Phrag. popowii). The second subspecies only grows in a very small area of Southern Mexico, and lacks a staminodal shield. Also this subspecies unlike its sister subspecies will self-pollinate. This subspecies is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies exstaminodium.

Hope this helps!
Robert


----------



## NYEric (Jun 21, 2012)

Photos!


----------



## Drorchid (Jun 21, 2012)

As per Eric's request:

Phrag. caudatum:






Phrag. caudatum (up-close):





Phrag. lindenii subspecies lindenii:





Phrag. lindenii subspecies lindenii (up-close):





Phrag. lindenii subspecies wallisii:





Phrag. lindenii subspecies wallisii (up-close):





Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies warscewiczii: 





Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies warscewiczii (up-close):





Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies exstaminodium: 





Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies exstaminodium (up-close): 





Robert


----------



## Shiva (Jun 21, 2012)

Thank you Doc for the great pics.:drool::drool::drool:


----------



## biothanasis (Jun 21, 2012)

Gorgeous blooms!!! Every var or species has its own beauty!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 21, 2012)

You worked with Braem & Ohlund on an article called "Will the real Phrag. warszewiczianum please stand up?" And in 05, you posted your conclusions on Slippertalk, which I kept in order to try to keep my brain straight on these names.


"...3 species: 

1 Phrag. caudatum 
2 Phrag. lindenii 
2A lindenii subsp. lindenii 
2B lindenii subsp. warscewiczianum 
3 Phrag. exstaminodium 
3A exstaminodium subsp. exstaminodium 
3B exstaminodium subsp. popowii"

And then you said:

"We did not like this idea at all. Because lindenii and exstaminodium were described before warscewiczianum and popowii, they would automatically get the species name (according to the code), and we did not like the idea of giving the South American species (formerly known as wallisii) the name of lindenii and the same is true for the Central American species, we did not want to give it the name of it's "mutant" sister species. 

So that is why we gave them 5 separate species names, and kept it cleaner; after all they are all very distinct; so that is how we came up with: 

1 Phrag. caudatum 
2 Phrag. warscewiczianum (fromely known as Phrag. wallisii) 
3 Phrag. lindenii 
4 Phrag. popowii (a species that had never officially been described, and was formely known in the public as Phrag. warscewiczianum or Phrag. caudatum var. warscewiczianum) 
5 Phrag. exstaminodium"

So that's why I get confused!


----------



## tenman (Jun 22, 2012)

Gee, I've never heard of these reclassifications and am unaware of anyone who subscribes to this rather radical reconfiguration of phragmipedium.


----------



## Dido (Jun 22, 2012)

great pics whathever the names are


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 26, 2012)

Super PICs but I'll stick with the old names


----------



## NYEric (Jun 26, 2012)

Drorchid said:


> As per Eric's request:
> 
> Phrag. lindenii subspecies wallisii:
> 
> ...




Many thanks Rob, but I'm now more confused than usual. I thought this was now caudatum!?


----------



## Shiva (Jun 26, 2012)

tenman said:


> Gee, I've never heard of these reclassifications and am unaware of anyone who subscribes to this rather radical reconfiguration of phragmipedium.



Don't worry! The plants don't know what they are themselves.


----------



## slippertalker (Jun 26, 2012)

Rob, this version makes are much sense as any, and better than most taxonomic treatments of this group. The tucking of the aberrant forms (lindenii and exstaminodium) with their close relatives is pretty logical. Throw in the fact that caudatum itself is pretty variable and one can be easily confused by people that love splitting these things.


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2012)

I think some range maps could also be helpful.

I found a recent paper (2011) by Rodolfo Solano-Gomez and Eduardo Martinez-Ovardo on a range extension of warscewiczii. Basically SW Chiapas Mexico.

It has some good color pics has more green than the Guatemalan versions. In fact they look just like the Gandalf clone of exstaminodium, but with staminodes.

Robert, I don't know if you caught the post of my exstaminodium this year. One flower had just a small fragment staminode, while the adjacent flower on the same spike had a complete staminode. Pretty weird.


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2012)

Drorchid said:


> The third species (and this one has caused the most confusion when it comes to naming it), is native to Central America (Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras): *Phrag. warscewiczii*. It has the darkest flowers of any of the long-petaled species. I am going by Christenson, and calling it Phrag. warscewiczii. Again there are two distinct subspecies. The first has normal flowers and is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies warscewiczii (synonym of Phrag. popowii). The second subspecies only grows in a very small area of Southern Mexico, and lacks a staminodal shield. Also this subspecies unlike its sister subspecies will self-pollinate. This subspecies is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies exstaminodium.
> 
> Hope this helps!
> Robert



I don't know if you ever got to see this one, (or got a more reliable translation):
Evaluacion del Riesgo de Extincion de Phrag. exstamidium 
de Acuerdo al Nomeral 5.7 de la NOM-059 SEMARNAT-2001.

Apparently this is a Mexican government sponsored conservation status report on Phrag. exstaminodium. My Spanish is really bad, but from what the translator programs came up with, indicated that several populations of staminode-less plants are found in both Guatemala and Southern Mexico. Also the trait of missing the staminode is highly variable (but I didn't understand that to mean on the same spike of a given plant).

Because of this noted variability in staminode presence, these authors also questioned the taxonomic status of exstaminodium.


----------



## Drorchid (Jul 3, 2012)

Rick said:


> I don't know if you ever got to see this one, (or got a more reliable translation):
> Evaluacion del Riesgo de Extincion de Phrag. exstamidium
> de Acuerdo al Nomeral 5.7 de la NOM-059 SEMARNAT-2001.
> 
> ...



Thanks Rick, and yes I had seen that paper. And no I had not seen your exstaminodium, pretty interesting. The fact the within the exstaminodium population, the trait of having or not having a staminodal shield, to me confirms that we are dealing with one species. I still would either give "exstaminodium" a variety or a subspecies status, just because (based on the plants I have seen) there are some other differences compared to "exstaminodium" and subspecies "warscewiczii" (aka popowii). Below is a link where I explain these differences:

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12240


Robert


----------



## tenman (Jul 6, 2012)

Drorchid said:


> Thanks Rick, and yes I had seen that paper. And no I had not seen your exstaminodium, pretty interesting. The fact the within the exstaminodium population, the trait of having or not having a staminodal shield, to me confirms that we are dealing with one species. I still would either give "exstaminodium" a variety or a subspecies status, just because (based on the plants I have seen) there are some other differences compared to "exstaminodium" and subspecies "warscewiczii" (aka popowii). Below is a link where I explain these differences:
> 
> http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12240
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. Not only very nice flowers, but interesting info was well.


----------

