# Rungsuriyanum



## MorandiWine (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 1, 2014)

Sorry "CAN anyone"

I-phone strikes again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NYEric (Jul 1, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 1, 2014)

.....yes? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NYEric (Jul 1, 2014)

To #1. #2 not so much.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 1, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> #2 if CITES has recognized this species?



What do you mean by this? Recognized as what?

CITES does not have to list the species, it is included along with all species of Paphs.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 2, 2014)

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


----------



## NYEric (Jul 2, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> Ps thanks Eric! You still want a division of that Ralph Goldner?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2



I don't have any of the new species, I swear! :ninja: 

:rollhappy:
Sure, I would be very happy to receive a division if you have one, thank you.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 2, 2014)

Ok. I was going to repot that plant in the coming weeks. Would you prefer bare root or potted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 2, 2014)

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.


----------



## John M (Jul 2, 2014)

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.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 2, 2014)

At least in the USA flasks (invitro) are only exempt from CITES if the original propagation material is obtained from a legal source.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 2, 2014)

Thanks for the clarifications everyone!! So guess I need to wait for flasks to be ready then. Now what about canhii?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## valenzino (Jul 3, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> Cab anyone confirm if rungsuriyanum is #1 being artificially propagated and #2 if CITES has recognized this species?
> 
> Cant wait to see these available!!
> 
> ...



Impossible that has been artificially propagated...will have first plants artificially propagated minimum in 2 years or more...


----------



## NYEric (Jul 3, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> Ok. I was going to repot that plant in the coming weeks. Would you prefer bare root or potted?


Whichever is easiest for you, thanks.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 3, 2014)

valenzino said:


> 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.


----------



## Chicago Chad (Jul 3, 2014)

> 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.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## John M (Jul 3, 2014)

gonewild said:


> 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.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 3, 2014)

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


----------



## gonewild (Jul 3, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> 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 ;-)



If the plants or flask clear CITES then they would likely pass Lacey as far as the "species" is concerned. But if the flasks have ligit CITES papers and later it turns out the original plants were collected illegally then it becomes a Lacey issue after fact.


----------



## valenzino (Jul 4, 2014)

gonewild said:


> Curious.... why is it impossible?
> The date the species was described may have nothing to do with when the plants were collected and propagated.



true,but this is not the case...plants wild collected few months ago as canhii and flowered as new species in Thailand....


----------



## gonewild (Jul 4, 2014)

valenzino said:


> true,but this is not the case...plants wild collected few months ago as canhii and flowered as new species in Thailand....



When stories (true or not) about the possibility of the plants being illegally collected are published it makes it impossible for a buyer to purchase the plants in compliance with the Lacey Act. How can a USA buyer be positive which story is true?


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 4, 2014)

We won't be seeing this for a long, long, time.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jul 6, 2014)

In a way I kind of wish that a government institution would step in and actually become the source for new plants. Perhaps start with confiscated plants and begin the propagation process from there. If they can provide enough plants to lessen the demand for wild collected plants it seems like and win win situation. And if it is done legitimately with plants that were confiscated from the black market it may also help eliminate some black market dealers too.
Just a thought. 

Tyler


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Justin (Jul 6, 2014)

I remember reading about "rescue centers" like this--from what I remember that's how vietnamense first became legal here when customs or USFW "boarded" a group of plants they had confiscated with Antec. Does anyone have an update on this program?


----------



## gonewild (Jul 6, 2014)

MorandiWine said:


> In a way I kind of wish that a government institution would step in and actually become the source for new plants. Perhaps start with confiscated plants and begin the propagation process from there. If they can provide enough plants to lessen the demand for wild collected plants it seems like and win win situation. And if it is done legitimately with plants that were confiscated from the black market it may also help eliminate some black market dealers too.
> Just a thought.
> 
> Tyler



Smuggled Paph plant... cost $50
Government produced Paph plant...cost $5000 (at least).

or
Government produced plant.... $50
Smuggled Paph plant... $5

Either way smuggling will continue and probably increase if the government were producing plants that could help shield smuggled plants. Your idea would definitely make species more available faster* but it would not stop the collection of the wild species.

* unless the government wipes out the entire population by an act of stupidity


----------



## NYEric (Jul 6, 2014)

I don't believe the rescue center grew plants collected from Antec. If you want to lose plants you put a government entity in charge of their production.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 6, 2014)

NYEric said:


> I don't believe the rescue center grew plants collected from Antec.



Antec was the rescue center.
And in reality the few plants they legally produced just made an avenue for illegal plants to surface. From a collectors standpoint that is fine as the species became available.
But from the nursery (Antec) side they lost money trying to "rescue" the plants. By the time they had legal plants in enough quantity to recoup their costs of the rescue program smuggled plants were being sold at a lower price. Those smuggled plants were claimed to be produced from ANTEC's rescued plants..... and that is why the rescue center production never works long term.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 6, 2014)

Plant Rescue......

Here is info about rescue centers...Plant Rescue Centers USFW

The last paragraph is interesting...

_How many plants are seized?
Between 2006 and 2010, the USDA
confiscated 680 plant shipments in
violation of CITES. These shipments
contained a total of 38,400 plants (27,270
orchids, 4,990 Venus flytraps, 3,239 cacti,
894 aloes, 821 euphorbias, 583 amaryllids,
307 cycads, 134 pitcher-plants, and 162
other species), plus an additional 3,933
seeds. Of these 680 shipments; 664
shipments containing 20,169 plants and
3,933 seeds were assigned to PRCs.
The remaining 18,231 plants from 16
shipments perished at the port or were
destroyed. No plants were returned to
the countries of export._


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 6, 2014)

As I recall, the confiscated vietnamense were taken to the "rescue" center (I think the NY Botanical Garden) and offered to be returned to Vietnam. When Vietnam refused them, Antec was contacted to produce flasks from the rescued plants. While the original plants were still considered contraband, all flasks (there may have been some helenae also) were legal. While Antec sold all its plants with full documentation, once they were on the open market, it wasn't long before more viets were available, Antec or not. If a plant was previously legal, than even technically illegal plants were sold openly, like delanatii when it was rediscovered in Vietnam. Also, many helenae were openly sold as "barbigerum v. helenae".


----------

