# Megastaminodium



## Braem (Jul 21, 2011)

Hi all - Those of you who have received their _Orchid Digest_ copy will have seen that Olaf and I have set up a new subgenus to accommodate _Paphiopedilum canhii._ A larger, more detailed article is in the make.


----------



## Hakone (Jul 21, 2011)

yes, yesterday I have seen .


----------



## Shiva (Jul 21, 2011)

Very good choice for a name.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 21, 2011)

True. GB, thanks for the info.


----------



## Jorch (Jul 21, 2011)

Shiva said:


> Very good choice for a name.



That's my though too. Boy, what a staminode on those flowers!


----------



## valenzino (Jul 21, 2011)

Agree about a new subgenus...


----------



## poozcard (Jul 21, 2011)

Wanna read
No one send me


----------



## Braem (Jul 21, 2011)

valenzino said:


> Agree about a new subgenus...


Both Pepe and Manolo now contacted me about pictures ... thanks for your help.


----------



## valenzino (Jul 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> Both Pepe and Manolo now contacted me about pictures ... thanks for your help.


A pleasure for me to help!

About P.canhii,it have really interesting characteristics,including lip shape,and leaves colour.
Is something between a Parvi and a barbata type...still cannot figure out what is it...but as a start,i like the subgenus name you gived it...descriptive(that i like,in my opinion all names have to be descriptive of something morphological,or strictly linked to the plant/plant habitat)...and about a strong characteristic of this flower.


----------



## Roth (Jul 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> Hi all - Those of you who have received their _Orchid Digest_ copy will have seen that Olaf and I have set up a new subgenus to accommodate _Paphiopedilum canhii._ A larger, more detailed article is in the make.



The only reasonable way to do...

Leonid Averyanov released a new report on the Russord Small Grants website which I quote some parts ( as citations):

' First publication of new species with illustrations and description appeared in May issue of American Orchid Society Magazine (Orchids) that immediately introduced species to broad circle of orchid lovers all over the world. Unfortunately, published name cannot be regarded as valid due to superfluous citation of two elements as a nomenclature type (Art. 8.1 & 8.2 of ICBN). A month later, the species was described in full accordance with rules of botanical nomenclature in Russian scientific journal - Turczaninowia (Averyanov, 2010).'

'This statement initiated description of new monotype subgenus - Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss (2011, Ochid Digest, July, Aug., Sept.: 164). Actually P. canhii has indeed morphologically more or less intermediate position between species of section Parvisepalum Aver. et P.J.Cribb (subgenus Parvisepalum Karas. et Saito) and section Barbata (Kraenzl.) V.A.Albert et Boerge Pett. (subgenus Paphiopedilum). It undoubtedly deserves segregation in rank of separate supra-species taxon. However, we suppose that will be more reasonable regard such taxon in rank of section of type subgenus. Description of such section is proposed here. '

Then he goes on with the following:

'Paphiopedilum subgen. Paphiopedilum sect. Pygmaea Aver., sect.nov.
Syn.: Paphiopedilum subgen. Megastaminodium Braem et O.Gruss, 2011, Ochid Digest, 3: 164.
Type species: Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss.
Plantae pumilae. Folia 4-6(8) cm longa. Sepala synsepalumque ovata, alba, purpureo-striata. Petala lanceolata, acuminata, sepalis multo angustiora. Labium inflatum, subsphaericum, calceolatum, subtiliter texturatum. Staminodium magnum, late ovoideum, applanatum. Folia rigida, supra distincte tessellata, subtus intense purpureo-violacea, maculata.
Monotype section.

Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010 (15 June), in Aver., Orch. Viet. Ill. Surv. Orchidoideae, Turczaninowia, 13, 2: 92. - “Paphiopedilum canhii” Aver. et O.Gruss, 2010, Orchids, Mag. Amer. Orch. Soc., 79, 5: 288, nom. invalid.
'
So Megastaminodium starts already with a synonym, Pygmaea that is supposedly a section, and not a subgenus 

I omit that in this long report, everything is 'extremely rare species', ' very rare endemic' even schoenorchis, holcoglossum amersianum and the like. Ad nauseum for the 'very rare' and the 'endemic' words.


----------



## Marc (Jul 22, 2011)

I find it a very fitting name, looking forward to reading and seeing more about this plant.


----------



## Braem (Jul 22, 2011)

Roth said:


> The only reasonable way to do...
> 
> Leonid Averyanov released a new report on the Russord Small Grants website which I quote some parts ( as citations):
> 
> ...


That is how taxonomy gets clogged up .... And it is ludicrous. ... the plant does not fit in subgenus Parvisepalum and does not fit in subgenus Paphiopedilum ... thus ... what is the sense of putting a new section ?? where is he going to put it? in subgenus Parvisepalum or in subgenus Paphiopedilum??? 

If it does not fit in an existing subgenus, it has to go in its own subgenus ... it is just as simple as that.

(besides the fact that his publication on a website is invalid)

Is Averyanov on this forum??


----------



## poozcard (Jul 22, 2011)

May I ask what is the difference between a subgenus and a section?


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 22, 2011)

the article from Averyanov
http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/final_report_801


----------



## valenzino (Jul 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> ...Is Averyanov on this forum??



No...correct me if I am wrong...


----------



## Braem (Jul 22, 2011)

poozcard said:


> May I ask what is the difference between a subgenus and a section?


The taxonomic levels starting with genus (and going "downwards") are

genus
subgenus
section
subsection
species
subspecies
variety
form
(cultivar)

so if you describe a section, that section should fit into a subspecies. But if there is no subgenus that can accommodate the section. But if the entity (here Paph. canhii) does not fit into any of the existing subgenera, there is no point in describing it as a new section, because that section does not fit anywhere.


----------



## Lycaste53 (Jul 22, 2011)

Thanks, 
it wasn´t my question, but I was quite confused about the levels before too, now, I understand the ascending order
Best regards, Gina


----------



## Braem (Jul 22, 2011)

Lycaste53 said:


> Thanks,
> it wasn´t my question, but I was quite confused about the levels before too, now, I understand the ascending order
> Best regards, Gina


Anytime ... that is what taxonomists/systematists are there for, and I wish more people would ask before talking bull and/or writing nonsense.


----------



## Shiva (Jul 22, 2011)

I can't help but think Megastaminodium would also be a great name for a Transformer. :rollhappy:


----------



## poozcard (Jul 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> The taxonomic levels starting with genus (and going "downwards") are
> 
> genus
> subgenus
> ...



thank you prof
:clap::clap:


----------



## labskaus (Jul 25, 2011)

Braem said:


> That is how taxonomy gets clogged up .... And it is ludicrous. ... the plant does not fit in subgenus Parvisepalum and does not fit in subgenus Paphiopedilum ... thus ... what is the sense of putting a new section ?? where is he going to put it? in subgenus Parvisepalum or in subgenus Paphiopedilum???
> 
> If it does not fit in an existing subgenus, it has to go in its own subgenus ... it is just as simple as that.
> 
> ...



Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.


----------



## Marc (Jul 25, 2011)

labskaus said:


> Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.



Please don't get that DNA thing started again oke:


----------



## poozcard (Jul 25, 2011)




----------



## Braem (Jul 25, 2011)

labskaus said:


> Well, Averyanov et al. decided in their report (not publication ) that canhii fits into subgenus Paphiopedilum. If it fits in there comfortably or by application of soft pressure I don't know. But, I'd like to see a set of solid molecular data sensibly applied to support either hypothesis.


BUt they also say it has traits of subgenus parvisepalum ... go figure . ... and what is DNA going to give you ... it is well established that DNA Analysis does bring ANYTHING

Stick to good old alpha-taxonomy ... use your eyes and your brains ... that is how its works.


----------

