# Phrag caudatum group Taxonomy



## Drorchid (Oct 31, 2006)

OK, I want to start a debate regarding the group of Phragmipediums with long Petals. As some of you may know myself, Dr. Guido Braem and Sandy Ohlund wrote some articles regarding these species. 

In a nutshell, Guido discovered that what we have been calling Phrag. wallisii all these years was an incorrect name. The reason is that Reichenbach who gave the name Phrag. wallisii in 1873 to that species, had named the same species twice. Twenty years earlier he had also described and named the following species (shown in the following picture, depicted in Paxton's Flower Garden (Lindley, 1850):







The name he gave to this species is Phrag. warscewiczianum. This was a species native to South America. This is clearly what we nowadays have been calling Phrag. wallisii.

see picture:






This means that if you follow the International Code, as the name Phrag. warscewiczianum was used first, this is the official name for this species, and Phrag wallisii becomes invalid.

Now later, in the trade another species showed up, that was native to Central America (Panama and Costa Rica). This is the following species:






Guido found out that this species was never officially described, but for some reason in the past it got the name Phrag. warscewiczianum associated with it. As this name was already taken by a different species we decided to officially describe it and give it the name Phrag. popowii.

Now my question for you guys is the following: It is clear there are 5 different (that we know of ) taxa within this group. We decided to give all 5 the species rank. So we came up with:

1. Phrag. caudatum
2. Phrag. lindenii
3. Phrag. warscewiczianum
4. Phrag. popowii
5. Phrag. exstaminodium

It was clear to us that Phrag. lindenii and Phrag. warscewiczianum are more closely related than to the other species, and the same is true to the two Central American species, Phrag. popowii and Phrag exstaminodium, but we decided to keep them as separate species, as we felt that they were isolated populations that grew in different areas and thus far we know no gene flow was occurring from one population to the next. I talked to a botanist (I forgot what his name is at the moment) who worked at the University in Ecuador, and he has seen Phrag. lindenii in the wild. According to him Phrag. lindenii grows in very different locations than Phrag. warscewiczianum and according to him they were 2 distinct species. Also it made it cleaner.

Cribb and Dressler on the other hand want to divide this group into 3 species. According to them lindenii is a "mutant" form of warscewiczianum, as it is bascally the peloric form of this species (It has 3 petals instead of a pouch). Aslo exstaminodium is the "mutant" form of popowii. It lacks the staminodal shield and just like Phrag. lindenii it self pollinates. However as lindenii was described before warscewiczianum and exstaminodium was described before popowii, the "mutant" forms would become the species names, and you would get the following classification (They probably would give them different variety names, but I gave them the same variety name to make it more clear):

1. Phrag. caudatum
2a. Phrag. lindenii var. lindenii
2b Phrag. lindenii var. warscewiczianum 
3a Phrag. exstaminodium var. exstaminodium
3b Phrag. exstaminodium var. popowii

The third thing you can do is to call it all the same species (Phrag. caudatum) and have 5 different varieties:

1a Phrag. caudatum var. caudatum
1b Phrag. caudatum var. lindenii
1c Phrag. caudatum var. warscewiczianum 
1d Phrag. caudatum var. exstaminodium
1e Phrag. caudatum var. popowii


Now my question to you guys is which classification to you prefer and why? Scenario one with 5 species; scenario two with 3 species and 2 varieties, or scenario three with one species and 5 varieties?

Robert


----------



## gonewild (Oct 31, 2006)

If it looks different, the name should different.

Your way is best. Making 5 distinct species. 

Here is my opinion why...
Because they are distinct not only in appearance but also in locations. Keeping the "species" well separated with their own "simple" names eliminates confusion. Taxonomists who basically deal with only preserved specimens have no problem grouping under one specie name. But when you get into the horticultural growing side it makes more sense to have distinct names so as not to confuse the species with varieties.

I think varietal names should be reserved for individual variations that exist repeatedly within a specie population but not as separate populations on their own.


----------



## silence882 (Oct 31, 2006)

Great topic!

McCook in her Phrag thesis (1989) considered Reichenbach's description of Phrag. warscewiczianum to be a later synonym of Phrag. caudatum rather than an earlier description of the taxon now usually called Phrag. wallisii. I haven't yet examined the descriptions, so I can't say which I agree with.

McCook also noted that the Central American taxon had no valid species name of its own, but didn't describe it because she considered the Central and South American 'caudatums' to be conspecific.


I tend to believe that the name warszewiczianum should not be used in place of what is now commonly called wallisii, even if it was describing what is now commonly called Phrag. wallisii. Dressler (2005 OD) pointed out that Article 57 prohibits the use of warscewiczianum in this sense:

57.1. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 14.1 or 56.1 has been submitted and rejected.

Therefore, if the 5 taxa are to be treated as species, they should be:
Phrag. caudatum
Phrag. wallisii
Phrag. lindenii
Phrag. exstaminodium
Phrag. popowii


The cloudiest issue seems to be the name of the central american very-dark taxon. So far, it changes names at least once and probably twice depending on which level it is assigned. Dressler in the 2005 OD article officially described Phrag. caudatum subsp. warszewiczii. Since article 11 of the ICBN states:

11.2. In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published (but see Art. 53.4).

both validly published names are legitimate. There may be a third legitimate name, Phrag. caudatum var. roseum, that applies to this taxon. The earliest reference I have seen about this name is the 1867 Revue Horticole. I haven't gotten a chance to read the article, so I can't say either way if it should be considered valid. Assuming that it is, this taxon now has three separate, legitimately published names:
Phrag. popowii
Phrag. caudatum subsp. warszewiczii
Phrag. caudatum var. roseum


The five taxa fall into two morphologically distinct groups: (i) caudatum, popowii, exstaminodium, and (ii) wallisii, lindenii.

I believe that (ii) wallisii and lindenii are sufficiently distinct from one another to be at the specific level.

However, I don't think there are sufficient morphological differences among group i to consider the three as distinct species. Besides the color, McCook (1989) couldn't find a consistent difference between the herbarium specimens of 'caudatum' from South America and the 'caudatum' from Central America. Phrag. exstaminodium differs from the Central American 'caudatum' by only a single morphological difference, the missing staminode, which allows the pollenia to contact the stigma during bud development and antithesis. Because of this, I consider these three taxa to be varieties of one species.

I prefer to adress the 5 taxa as:
Phrag. wallisii
Phrag. lindenii
Phrag. caudatum
Phrag. caudatum var. roseum (tentative)
Phrag. caudatum var. exstaminodium


The major issue I have with the Braem, Ohlund, & Quene article is the name chosen for the Central American species. A far, far more appropriate move would have been to validly describe the species as Phrag. humboldtii, the name Warszewicz originally intended for the taxon. Instead, the taxon was named after a friend of Braem's who is a renowned orchid smuggler.

--Stephen


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 31, 2006)

Stephen very good points!

My question is why do you consider lindenii to be sufficiently distinct from wallisii. To me the morphological differences between the two are probably due to a difference in "one" or " two" genes between the two taxa. If you consider exstaminodium and popowii to be the same species; you should do the same for lindenii and wallisii.

By the way, just out of curriosity I crossed lindenii with wallisii, to see what you would get. My theory is that the primary cross will look exactly like Phrag. wallisii. If I would sib 2 of the seedlings, I am guessing that 1/4 will look like Phrag. lindenii again.....If this is true does this mean they are the same species? 

I hate to agree with you on the other point regarding wallisii versus warscewiczianum, but even I prefer to keep using the name wallisii, because if I would use "warscewiczianum" for that taxon I think it creates confusion. Especially if you have a plant that has written Phrag. warscewiczianum on the label......you would start to think is this the old name or the new name.....so that is why I keep calling the South American species Phrag. wallisii, but I do call the Central American species Phrag. popowii.....now I had no part in the naming of the orchid, and have to agree with you that Phrag. humboldtii would have been more appropriate....but it has now been described as Phrag. popowii, so that is what I am naming it.

Robert


----------



## silence882 (Oct 31, 2006)

I could definitely be convinced to consider all five as species!

But for now, I consider wallisii and lindenii to be distinct enough to be considered separate species because they have more than a single consistent morphological difference. The functional third anther pressing the pollenia against the stigma was probably the first trait to evolve which separated lindenii from wallisii. Somewhere along the line, the blooms then lost their pouches. If you crossed wallisii and lindenii, I would guess that you'll get a plant that looks exactly like wallisii. If you then do an F1 sib cross, I would guess that a quarter of the offspring would be pouchless. However, I don't have a good guess as to whether or not there would be a third anther in any of the F2s, and if so, whether or not it would be formed correctly. That specific an adaptation strikes me as being too complex to be controlled by a single gene.

I don't consider exstaminodium and popowii to be separate species because they have only a single consistent morphological difference, the missing staminode. I would guess this trait is the result of a single defective recessive gene (like an albino is). Also, Dressler (2005) reported that there are intermediate forms between popowii and exstaminodium in Guatemala that have partially formed staminodes. It would be interesting to see the results of a cross between exstaminodium and popowii.

This situation is one where both arguments are convincing. I may very well go back to calling the 5 taxa separate species.

--Stephen


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 31, 2006)

I have to agree with you that you can go both ways and that is why I posted this thread...my preference is still to call all 5 taxa separate species.

By the way the fact that Phrag lindenii has a 3rd pollinia in my view is linked to it having 3 petals. I have seen Paphiopedilums that sometimes have a petal instead of a pouch or have multiple pouches instead of petals, and when this is the case they sometimes have an extra pollenia. I think because it had the extra pollenia it was able to survive and become a separate entity (because it was able to selfpollinate and thus pass on it's "mutant" gene to the next generation).

We will know for sure if it is one or multiple genes if we get seggregation in the F2 generation. Say we get plants without a pouch, but with only 2 pollenia, or plants with 3 pollinia and with a pouch, but if in the F2 generation (after siibbing two F1 plants) we get 25% of the plants that look like lindenii with 3 pollenia and without a pouch, and 75% that look like wallisii that have a pouch with only 2 pollenia; it is probably only due to one gene......I can't waite to see the results.....It is good I am a patient person.

Robert


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 31, 2006)

I tend to agree with Stephen that the loss of the pouch is a direct result of the evolution(well, I'd guess that it was probably more of a freak "accident" than prolonged evolution) of the third anther. Since it could self pollinate, mutations upon the labellum wouldn't make a large difference in overall fitness of the individuals. I think that is a lot more likely than a third anther and modified labellum arising at the same time as a result of the same mutation. After all, slipper parts come in threes. Three petals, three sepals, three styles(fused into one), and three stamens (1 modified to become the staminode). The addition of the 3rd anther means that lindenii would have, essentially, 4 stamens. I just don't think that mutation and the pouch loss would occur at the same time due to the same genetic mutation.


----------



## Heather (Oct 31, 2006)

I have only one word. 

Headache.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 31, 2006)

If they're in a pot and on my bench, they are called wallisii(the light one), caudatum, warscewiczianum(the dark one), lindenii, and extaminodium.

I realize taxonomists need work, and I agree that Braem is correct in his research...but I don't really care to be honest. I know that is pretty useless when it comes to having a constructive discussion, but I'm not gonna budge on this one(and I will NEVER call Laelia purpurata, Sophronitis purpurata!!). I think there needs to be a statute of limitations on some of these names. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and has been called a duck for 150 years...I'm not gonna call it an owl because that was what was originally written down and lost for all that time and rename owls as hooters...though I would consider that name oke:

Jon
________
Kawasaki Zn1100B


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 31, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> If they're in a pot and on my bench, they are called wallisii(the light one), caudatum, warscewiczianum(the dark one), lindenii, and extaminodium.
> 
> I realize taxonomists need work, and I agree that Braem is correct in his research...but I don't really care to be honest. I know that is pretty useless when it comes to having a constructive discussion, but I'm not gonna budge on this one(and I will NEVER call Laelia purpurata, Sophronitis purpurata!!). I think there needs to be a statute of limitations on some of these names. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and has been called a duck for 150 years...I'm not gonna call it an owl because that was what was originally written down and lost for all that time and rename owls as hooters...though I would consider that name oke:
> 
> Jon



I agree. These names have been used for such a long time that they should continue............switching names and concepts is too confusing and will lead to more mislabeling, misidentification and incorrectly named crosses.


----------



## silence882 (Oct 31, 2006)

In this case, the question of names isn't really an issue for the orchid grower. The 5 taxa are well known and the names don't overlap. The proper name and identity of each taxon is of interest to the taxonomists.

However, there are many cases where names are misused and confused by orchid growers to the point where you can never be sure of what plant you're buying/growing. Many orchid sellers often use the wrong name for the plants they're offering or worse still, end up selling hybrids as species.

For instance, I've seen plants of praestans, wilhelminiae, glanduliferum, gardineri, and bodegomii for sale. In reality, there are only two distinct species (and their primary hybrid) in cultivation at the moment. I bought a 'Paph. gardineri' that turned out to be a typical wilhelminiae, but it could just have easily been a praestans. I had no way of knowing until it bloomed

--Stephen


----------



## Rick (Oct 31, 2006)

silence882 said:


> For instance, I've seen plants of praestans, wilhelminiae, glanduliferum, gardineri, and bodegomii for sale. In reality, there are only two distinct species (and their primary hybrid) in cultivation at the moment. I bought a 'Paph. gardineri' that turned out to be a typical wilhelminiae, but it could just have easily been a praestans. I had no way of knowing until it bloomed
> 
> --Stephen



I was recently informed by Jo Levey (and backed up by Garay) that there are no real wilhelminea in the US (they are all gardineri)??? This came about after Jo saw that I had wilhelminea on my collection list.

Even though my plant blooms on 6" leaf span growths, and the flower is a dead ringer for the insitu pic of wilhelminae in Cribbs book. Garay said it was definitely gardineri because it had twisted petals and a square staminode.


----------



## Rick (Oct 31, 2006)

As far as the phrag debate goes:

I think its fair to give them all species status. Not only is there range and habitat separation, but separation in reproductive strategies.

Mutations are (at least one process) that make species. And I'm not aware of any rules that define how much mutation is neccesary before species status is granted from the parent species.

In this case the mutations we are seeing in the long petaled phrags seem to be producing plants with different reproductive strategies from the parent species. If this gives the new "species" a significant degree of reproductive isolation from the parent then I think that species status is justified.

Of couse the notion of "significance" will need to be debated.


----------



## silence882 (Oct 31, 2006)

The only description of gardineri is a poor line drawing from The Cruise of the Marchesa, by Guillemard (1886) (it was reproduced in the Jul/Sep 1995 OD). It's woefully inadequate to assign a taxon to the name. Cyp. gardineri should be considered a nomen nudum.

--Stephen



Rick said:


> I was recently informed by Jo Levey (and backed up by Garay) that there are no real wilhelminea in the US (they are all gardineri)??? This came about after Jo saw that I had wilhelminea on my collection list.
> 
> Even though my plant blooms on 6" leaf span growths, and the flower is a dead ringer for the insitu pic of wilhelminae in Cribbs book. Garay said it was definitely gardineri because it had twisted petals and a square staminode.


----------



## labskaus (Nov 1, 2006)

Eric Christenson wrote a short note in a german journal earlier this year where he stated that Selenipedium warszewiczianum was the oldest name for the Panamese taxon and made the combination to Phragmipedium. So, now it is Phrag. warszewiczianum again.
Of course, this was almost half a year ago and it really is about time to find a new name again  

It may be hard to see in pressed herbarium specimens, but all the caudatum plants I have seen live and on photos I find quite distinct from the mid-american taxon, as much as from the pale wallisii. So there are caudatum, wallisii and warszewiczianum. I agree that one single different trait (missing staminode shield or lip) shouldn't make a different species, but these traits change the repoductive behaviour of the varieties lindenii and exstaminodium and together with the different geografical distribution and apparently habitat these seem to be good arguments (just to me) to treat lindenii and exstaminodium as distinct species.

Cheers, Carsten


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 1, 2006)

Carsten,

Do you know when the Panamese species was described as Selenipedium warscewiczii?

If this was done after 1852 (that is the date when Rechenbach described Cyp. warscewiczianum for the South American "lighter" colored species that later became synonymous with Phrag. wallisii), we cannot use the name "warscewiczii" for the Central American species.

Anyway my point is when taxonomist's decide to combine species from different genera into a new genus, certain rules have to be followed, so if one species from Central America was described as Selenipedium warscewiczii and another species from South America as Cyperpedium warscewiczianum; when you put them together into a new genus, only one can be named Phragmipedium warscewiczianum (as the name Phrag. warscewiczii will look too similar), I am guessing that Cyp. warscewiczianum was described first which means the name "warscewiczianum" has to be applied to the South American species (later known as wallisii).

There is also a rule (that I believe) in the code that if a species has had a name for so many years even though it is not the first and valid name it can keep the name...so in this case as we have been calling the South American species Phrag. wallisii for all these years it can keep the name Phrag. wallisii. But as the name "Phrag. warscewiczianum" was already used and is now a synomym for Phrag. wallisii, I think we should abandon the name Phrag. warscewiczii for the Central American species, and thus the name Phrag. popowii would become valid again.....

I know.....those Taxonomists (I am one of them) sure make it complicated....but we are just trying to go by the rules......and I have to agree with Jon, that to me Laelia purpurescens will never be Sophronitis purpurescens....

Robert


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 1, 2006)

I just emailed Dr. Guido Braem, and told him we were debating about the long petaled Phragmipedium species on this forum, and wanted his input as well, as he knows more about all the Plant Taxonomy Rules than I do, and he responded that he will contribute as well in the near future.

Robert


----------



## labskaus (Nov 2, 2006)

*warscewiczianum vs. warscewiczii*

yes, and it took quite some effort to type the title alright!

I only have access to a subset of the literature, my very limited knowledge of the group is based on the few articles I have:
That's Olafs article in OD, Braem et al. and Braem and Ohlund in Australian Orchid Digest (should be the english translations og the two articles in Richardiana), the article of Dressler in OD and one of Eric Christenson in the Journal für den Orchideenfreund. Also, thanks to Stephen, I have Reichenbachs Xenia Orchidea, and Hookers 1844 text.

Reading these bits left me with a few questions, some of them are probably hard to answer. Mostly nobody bothers, I'm afraid.

Taxonomy:

I think most people agree that there are 5 taxa in the caudatum group. Wether these are 5 distinct species, or three species and two subspecies is up to everyone’s personal opinion, i.e. species concept applied. Actually, we haven’t talked about the numerous varieties of caudatum yet. var. giganteum, sanderae etc. Olaf mentioned a few of those in his OD article. I don’t know wether these varieties deserve the rank variety, or if they are mere colour forms of caudatum.

Nomenclature:

Lindley described C. caudatum based on a pressed flower from the Ruiz herbarium. Hooker depicted an inflorescence 1844, coll. by Lobb in the interior of Peru, as caudatum.

Reichenbach in 1852? received C. humbodtii from v. Warsc.
Question: did he receive a life plant or pressed material? Where had v. W. been collecting this particular plant? Has it been preserved? At the Reichenbach Herbarium? I'm asking because v. Warsc. has travelled both in mid-and South America and don't know wether this particular travel led him through Peru/Ecuador only or if he reached the habitats of what's now popowii.
As for the name: I understand that Reichenbach fil published the name C. humboldtii Wzw by reducing it to synonymy with C. caudatum. Therefore that name is not available in Cypripedium anymore. The name is also not available in Phragmipedium anymore, since Attwood and Dressler published Phrag. humboldtii nom. invalid. Correct? 
Rchb. treats C. humboldtii v.W. as a synonym of C. caudatum. After that he describes C. warscewiczianum based on the picture in Paxton’s flower garden(?). As far as I can tell from the picture published in the Australian Orchid Digest Article, the flower clearly resembles what was long known as wallisii.

In the Xenia O. from 1858, Rchb. fil. transferred all known species of Cypripedium from South America to Selenipedium. It reads:
1)	S. caudatum. Cypripedium caudatum Lindl. Cypripedium humboldti Wzw.
2)	S. warscewiczianum. Cypripedium warscewiczianum Rchb. fil.

In the Xenia O. from 1874 (1873?) Rchb. fil. describes S. wallisii:

Affine Selenipedio caudato Rchb. fil. et Warscewiczii Rchb. fil. (caudato roseo Hort.).

He continues further down: “I find it hard to determine a character despite the obviously large difference(s) to the abovementioned two species, especially after through experience I have become very careful using the staminode shape. Finally I noticed that this species lacks the hairs at the rim of the tepals which characterise the other two species.
At this occasion I may mention that I have been lucky finally to find an excellent difference between S. caudatum and S. warscewiczii. The latter has numerous small pits on the front part of the lip, which are completely absent in the former. All efforts to determine a distinguishing character from the staminode failed, with increasing numbers of plants I’ve seen.” My own humble translation.

Questions: was the transition from S. warscewiczianum to S. warscewiczii likely to be a spelling error by Rchb., or did he intend to describe a new species with this name? 
Did Rchb still have access to the type of S. warsc. (the painting in Paxton’s) in 1873? Have plants fitting the type of S. warsc. been imported to Europe between 1854 and 1873? Have plants of the meso-american species been imported during that time and been available to Rchb.?
Christenson mentions a reference for C. caudatum var. roseum in Rev. Hort. 1867: 133. Anybody can provide a copy? Indications of the origin of plants and the colour, maybe a painting in there? Is this really a synonym of popowii?

I get the impression that Rchb. hasn’t seen any plant material of his S. warscewiczianum until 1873, when he described S. wallisii. Apparently, in the meantime he had received material from central America (from whom?) which for some reason he considered to be his species warscewiszii(-ianum).
Both caudatum and the mid-american species possess hairs at the rim of the petals. My popowii Fu-Manchu’s lip looks like it has been a bad case of acne when it was younger: lots of pits on a scarred lip front. On the other hand, Rchb. uses the lack of hairs on the petal rims on his wallisii as the distinguishing character.

The original description of C. warscewiczianum by Rchb was based on the staminode shape, which Rchb later on didn’t trust as a character anymore. Did he not believe in his concept of warscewiczianum anymore and silently tried to slip in caudatum roseum as warscewiczii?

Reichenbachs description of S. wallisii fits the type of S. warscewiczianum pretty well, so it leaves wallisii as a synonym of that species.
The informal description (better, comparison with related taxa) of S. warscewiczii within the text in Xenia Orch. 1873 fits what we now know as popowii, the mid-american species.

So, Christenson is right and we do have an old name (S. warscewiczii Rchb. fil.) for popowii, only if this name is valid. Validity may be questioned because of the similarity to the older name S. warscewiczianum and the doubtful intention of Rchb fil to actually newly describe a species/publish a new name S. warscewiczii. Any comments?

best wishes, Carsten


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 2, 2006)

My head is spinning...


----------



## labskaus (Nov 2, 2006)

I forgot:

Christenson hasn't cited a type for Paph. warscewiczii. Did he have to, and is there one at all?
From Christenson: "The name Selenipedium warscewiczii is what we today call an avowed substitute name based on the earlier Cypripedium caudatum var. roseum Hort."

Cheers, Carsten (insane)


----------



## Jmoney (Nov 2, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> If they're in a pot and on my bench, they are called wallisii(the light one), caudatum, warscewiczianum(the dark one), lindenii, and extaminodium.
> 
> I realize taxonomists need work, and I agree that Braem is correct in his research...but I don't really care to be honest. I know that is pretty useless when it comes to having a constructive discussion, but I'm not gonna budge on this one(and I will NEVER call Laelia purpurata, Sophronitis purpurata!!). I think there needs to be a statute of limitations on some of these names. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and has been called a duck for 150 years...I'm not gonna call it an owl because that was what was originally written down and lost for all that time and rename owls as hooters...though I would consider that name oke:
> 
> Jon



I am with Jon 100%. I have phrags wallisii and warscewiczianum in my collection, and Laelia purpurata. you all can call it what you want, but a century of this naming convention is good enough for me to keep it the same in my book.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 2, 2006)

I think a lot of us get too worked up over taxonomy. Now, this is serious business if you are a taxonomist.....and if you insist on being absolutely scientific about your collection. But, I myself, consider my hobby to be horticulture, not botany, not taxonomy. I do take my collection seriously in a scientific sense...but I also categorize it horticulturally. Scientifically, I tend to be a "lumper".....I have no problem considering all long petalled phrags to be within the species concept "caudatum". That said, I also have no problem with plants labelled "wallisii" or "warsce...whatever..." or caudatum. My collection is for my enjoyment, not research, and I'm happy to be a "splitter" as far as my plants are concerned. Notice I didn't mention lindenii....you guys can keep that ugly mutant for yourselves...what's the point of a slipper orchid without a slipper? I also refused to get worked up over Laelia/Sophronitis....I'm perfectly happy to accept that my Laelia purpurata is really a Sophronitis. I just won't bother to change the tag..................Take care, Eric


----------



## Rick (Nov 2, 2006)

Allot of taxonomy seems to be as much history and politics rather than science.:evil:


----------



## Braem (Nov 3, 2006)

labskaus said:


> Eric Christenson wrote a short note in a german journal earlier this year where he stated that Selenipedium warszewiczianum was the oldest name for the Panamese taxon and made the combination to Phragmipedium. So, now it is Phrag. warszewiczianum again.
> Of course, this was almost half a year ago and it really is about time to find a new name again
> 
> It may be hard to see in pressed herbarium specimens, but all the caudatum plants I have seen live and on photos I find quite distinct from the mid-american taxon, as much as from the pale wallisii. So there are caudatum, wallisii and warszewiczianum. I agree that one single different trait (missing staminode shield or lip) shouldn't make a different species, but these traits change the repoductive behaviour of the varieties lindenii and exstaminodium and together with the different geografical distribution and apparently habitat these seem to be good arguments (just to me) to treat lindenii and exstaminodium as distinct species.
> ...


Sorry, but Eric is symply wrong. Paph. warscewiczii cannot be the name as the genus Paphiopedilum was not created until about 40 years later.
The earliest names is Cypripedium warscewiczii and Selenipedium warscewiczii and they are later homonyms of "warszewiczianum" (correct spelling). If Eric maintains that "warscewiczii" is a different species than "warszewiczianum", he is simply wrong. The names are different spellings by Reichenbach (who made a lot of these mistakes.) And even if Eric were right, the name warzcewiczii (however you spell it) would me a later homonym and invalid. It has all been said before. The "avowed substitute" theory of Eric is nonscence. Must go. Will be in soon again.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 3, 2006)

I thought the standard convention is that the initially published name stands, if they are actually the same plant. Can't the plants be compared, dried sample to live plants, via genetics?


----------



## Braem (Nov 3, 2006)

*popowii & co*

Stephen wrote:


silence882 said:


> Great topic!
> 
> 
> I tend to believe that the name warszewiczianum should not be used in place of what is now commonly called wallisii, even if it was describing what is now commonly called Phrag. wallisii. Dressler (2005 OD) pointed out that Article 57 prohibits the use of warscewiczianum in this sense:
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 3, 2006)

Well, fine. But if you don't care, why join in this debate.


----------



## silence882 (Nov 3, 2006)

Braem said:


> Stephen wrote: Great topic!
> 
> I tend to believe that the name warszewiczianum should not be used in place of what is now commonly called wallisii, even if it was describing what is now commonly called Phrag. wallisii. Dressler (2005 OD) pointed out that Article 57 prohibits the use of warscewiczianum in this sense:
> 
> ...



I was under the impression that the 'should's in the ICBN were the Recommendations and that the Articles are mandatory. Am I wrong in this? The Preamble states:

4. The object of the Rules is to put the nomenclature of the past into order and to provide for that of the future; names contrary to a rule cannot be maintained.
5. The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to bring about greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future nomenclature; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be rejected, but they are not examples to be followed.



Braem said:


> Stephen continues:
> 
> The cloudiest issue seems to be the name of the central american very-dark taxon. So far, it changes names at least once and probably twice depending on which level it is assigned. Dressler in the 2005 OD article officially described Phrag. caudatum subsp. warszewiczii. Since article 11 of the ICBN states:
> 
> ...



I was misusing the term taxon/taxa. Is there a common term that applies to the group but doesn't imply ranks? (e.g. something that would cover the plants known as lindenii without specifying whether it is being called a variety or a species.)

I suppose what I should have said was:

I prefer to use the 5 taxa:
Phrag. wallisii
Phrag. lindenii
Phrag. caudatum
Phrag. caudatum var. roseum (tentative)
Phrag. caudatum var. exstaminodium



Braem said:


> Stephen continues:
> 
> The major issue I have with the Braem, Ohlund, & Quene article is the name chosen for the Central American species. A far, far more appropriate move would have been to validly describe the species as Phrag. humboldtii, the name Warszewicz originally intended for the taxon. Instead, the taxon was named after a friend of Braem's who is a renowned orchid smuggler.
> 
> ...



1) I know the choice of name lies with the authors. I was saying what I would have named the species had I been in their position.
2) 'humboldtii' was misunderstood by Atwood & Dressler. That's not why I thought it should be used as the name for the new species. I thought humboldtii should be used because Rchb. fil wrote that Warszewicz, the collector, had intended it to be named as such.
3) I, like many, have serious objections regarding CITES and don't care really care if it's being violated. However, these forums have allowed me to get to know people from around the world that do business with Mr. Popow. Unless these people have all been lying to me, Mr. Popow routinely ignores CITES restrictions.
4) I'm not telling the authors to go back in time and change the name they applied to the species. The authors published a paper in a scientific journal and should expect and encourage feedback on their work.

--Stephen


----------



## Braem (Nov 4, 2006)

"So, Christenson is right and we do have an old name (S. warscewiczii Rchb. fil.) for popowii, only if this name is valid. Validity may be questioned because of the similarity to the older name S. warscewiczianum and the doubtful intention of Rchb fil to actually newly describe a species/publish a new name S. warscewiczii. Any comments?"

I am afraid this has amused me. You yourself give the reasons why Eric Christenson cannot be right! 

OK for the slower ones. If you transfer Selenipedium warscewiczii to Phragmipedium, you get Phragmipedium warszewicziii (spelling error corrected). And that is just the same name as Phragmipedium warszewiczianum, just with another ending. Now we know that all plants under that name have been given for one single person: the collector Warszewicz who was a good friend of Reichenbach fil. And this means that Eric's P. warscewiczii is invalid. It is just as simple as that.

Now, in addition, Reichenbach fil. may have been an arrogant dude, but he was certainly not a fool. Thus when he writes Cypripedium warscewiczianum, or C. warscewiczii he meant the SAME Species. And that is what we now call Phragmipedium warszewiczianum because that is the proper taxonomic designation today. Now, Reichenbach also LINKED it explicitly to at least one very clear and distinct illustration. And that illustration shows the plant SOME people haven been calling Phragmipedium wallisii (since 1983 or 1984 and not for 100 or 150 years). Eric did not discover that Reichenbach had described an extra species, Eric just wanted to get into the discussion, for whatever reason (which I dont wish to degress upon here but which are well-known by all those that know Eric Christenson).

Again, maybe you should read Braem & Ohlund before ... 

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 5, 2006)

Rick said:


> Allot of taxonomy seems to be as much history and politics rather than science.:evil:



That statement shows that you don't have a clue about taxonomy. Pseudotaxonomy done in Orchids is indeed politics. And that is why I keep saying that non-taxonomists should keep their hands away from this very difficult science of taconomy and systematics. If you look seriously at what is regarded as orchid taxonomy by the general public, you will see that most of it is hot air by people who have no training as a taxonomist at all.
Of course there is envy, jalousy, hatred, etc involved. But you find that in any discipline (I could list some good examples out of anthropology, archeology, Art History, etc.). And unfortunately, some taxonomists are too chauvinistic to admit that there are other languages than their native one. For example, the discussion about P. popowii originated only out of the fact that two American taxonomists were not capable (I could also phrase it differently) to read German, and were too arrogant and/or lazy to ask someone for help. And now one of them writes a nonsence article in OD because he feels insulted having been shown to be wrong. The other one is in hiding since the kovachii affair. And the third jumped on the bandwagon because of his principle of needing to have his say. You may call that "politics" but in fact it is nothing but proof that some scientists don't understand their metier.

Guido


----------



## Rick (Nov 5, 2006)

I figured I would egg someone on with that eventually, but it seems like we all have witnessed about 3 pages of posts that focus on a "who was there first" argument that has spanned 150 years (history), rather than reflecting on the biological/ecological similarities/differences of the taxa in question.

I realize I don't have a keen understanding of this science since I'm not a taxonomist by trade, but as an ecologist and toxicologist I have yet to witness such legal wrangling and bureaucracy within a scientific discipline.

I guess I lead a sheltered life


----------



## Braem (Nov 11, 2006)

*Importance*

Rick,

the problem is that one of the uppermost rules in taxonomy IS _priority_. We must live with that, whether we like it or not. And as long as there is the rule of priority (meaning always, otherwise taxonomy would become chaos), we have to pay attention to it. 
Its like traffic laws. We make not like some of them, but without the traffic laws there would be chaos.

And it is not always as easy as it is to solve in the case of the chicken and the egg (which is real easy ... just think).

regards
Guido




Rick said:


> I figured I would egg someone on with that eventually, but it seems like we all have witnessed about 3 pages of posts that focus on a "who was there first" argument that has spanned 150 years (history), rather than reflecting on the biological/ecological similarities/differences of the taxa in question.
> 
> I realize I don't have a keen understanding of this science since I'm not a taxonomist by trade, but as an ecologist and toxicologist I have yet to witness such legal wrangling and bureaucracy within a scientific discipline.
> 
> I guess I lead a sheltered life


----------



## Braem (Nov 11, 2006)

*Initially published*

Eric,

not quite. The initially published name stands if it was published validly and effectively (and in the case of a genus there is another criterion, but lets not make it too complicated).

And yes, plants can be compared via DNA analysis, but remember, what we do is compare a very small part of the genome. Thus, ...... 

Its like sitting in a train and looking at the cows between New York and Buffalo. The first one is white, the second one is white .. etc.. and no. 26777 is white too. Now you are in Buffalo. Can you say that all the cows are white? NO. You can only say that all parts YOU have seen of all the cows YOU have seen are white. Get the point?:evil: 

regards
Guido



NYEric said:


> I thought the standard convention is that the initially published name stands, if they are actually the same plant. Can't the plants be compared, dried sample to live plants, via genetics?


----------



## Heather (Nov 11, 2006)

Braem said:


> Rick,
> 
> the problem is that one of the uppermost rules in taxonomy IS _priority_. We must live with that, whether we like it or not. And as long as there is the rule of priority (meaning always, otherwise taxonomy would become chaos), we have to pay attention to it.



Personally, I think this is good. There needs to be some standard adhered to. While it may annoy us to have P. kovachii instead of peruvianum, priority stands. When Glen Decker came to speak to our society last year, our society president made a HUGE stink about how NO ONE in the society would be calling it kovachii, because of the dubious nature of it's description. It took several calls to Glen and the RHS to convince her that, however unfortunate, that's the plant's name!


----------



## Braem (Nov 12, 2006)

*To be dubious or not to be dubious*

If we are going to refuse to accept the names because we don't like the person whose name is used , or because we don't like the author of the article? where will it end.
The big stink about _"Phrag. popowii" _is is causes 40% by people that don't like Mr. Popow (for what reasons) ever, 40% by people who don't like me, 18% by people that simple don't understand the issue and don't bother to verify it, and 2% by miscellaneous. And of all those, 99% have not read the pertinent literature.

There is forrestry engineer who had (maybe still has) a dog named "Saddam Hussein". Is the work of that person bad because of the name of his/her dog? What about plants named by Cribb (whose "Expertise" in the Popow case was thrown out of court because he lied in it. What about plants named (if there are any) for GW? I bet you a lot of people all over the world would object to that.

Some of the main problems in orchid taxonomy are jealousy, envy, personal intrigues etc. 

Whether _"perivianum"_ or _"kovachii"_ is the better name for _P. kovachii_ is a matter of opinion. If Elisabeth Besse purchased the first _besseae_ from a roadside vendor (as Kovach did in the case of _P. kovachii), _why does no-one question the name of _P. besseae. _

There are people on any forum that will question ANYTHING I do even if I would save their own life, they would still question me. At the same time, some of these people praise anthing what Cribb says. One of the AOS Presidents once wrote in AOS Bulletin: (quote) "The AOS follows the opinion of Cribb because he is employed by Kew". That, of course, is a very valid scientific argument.

To come to a conclusion: names are given by the authors of an article. Just accept them and leave the personal feelings out. All what we have to be concerned about is:

1) Is the name validly published
2) is the name effectively published
3) is the name the first validly and effectively published name for the taxon.

and believe me, there is more than enough room for discussion there.

and jus two afterthought: 

1) If _P. kovachii_ would have been named _P. Gerorgebushii,_ no-one in the USA who have criticised Selby, Higgins, Kovach in any respect (at least not at the time), and the US authorities would have told Peru to go fly a kite. And Eric Christenson would never have made a fuzz about the thing if Kovach would have asked _him_ to describe the plant as_ P. kovachii._

2) what is a "dubious nature of description"? Who decides what "dubious" is?
As I have written on other occassions (and have been scolded for), I will write here again: morality (whatever it may mean), political correctness (whatever that may mean), and many other things are nothing but *very subjective* entities "accepted" by _certain people _ in _certain places_ at _certain times._ They may (and are) different between peoples, places and times. I can give you plenty of examples from many parts of history .....

regards
Guido


And a question: is there any spellchecking function for these messages?







Heather said:


> Personally, I think this is good. There needs to be some standard adhered to. While it may annoy us to have P. kovachii instead of peruvianum, priority stands. When Glen Decker came to speak to our society last year, our society president made a HUGE stink about how NO ONE in the society would be calling it kovachii, because of the dubious nature of it's description. It took several calls to Glen and the RHS to convince her that, however unfortunate, that's the plant's name!


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 12, 2006)

Braem said:


> 1) If _P. kovachii_ would have been named _P. Gerorgebushii,_ no-one in the USA who have criticised Selby,


Ohhhhh, you are *so* wrong on this one!!! :fight:


----------



## PHRAG (Nov 12, 2006)

Braem said:


> Some of the main problems in orchid taxonomy are jealousy, envy, personal intrigues etc.


 
I would go so far as to say that this is a problem in pretty much every aspect of the orchid world, from scientists on down to hobbyists. I would also add that I think the internet aggrivates these problems, and makes them ten times worse. I think it's alot harder to call someone ignorant, or worse, when you are standing right in front of them. Though, I can think of a few people I hope I never meet at an orchid show. My mouth has a tendency to say the most insulting things in real life. And most of the time, they are true.  



Braem said:


> Whether _"perivianum"_ or _"kovachii"_ is the better name for _P. kovachii_ is a matter of opinion. If Elisabeth Besse purchased the first _besseae_ from a roadside vendor (as Kovach did in the case of _P. kovachii), _why does no-one question the name of _P. besseae. _
> 
> There are people on any forum that will question ANYTHING I do even if I would save their own life, they would still question me. At the same time, some of these people praise anthing what Cribb says. One of the AOS Presidents once wrote in AOS Bulletin: (quote) "The AOS follows the opinion of Cribb because he is employed by Kew". That, of course, is a very valid scientific argument.


 
Do you think this has anything to do with reputations, true or untrue? I will admit Dr. Braem, the first I heard of you was from the book Orchid Fever. Your inclusion in that book, as well as that of Cribb and Popow, elevates you to a status of "celebrity" to some extent. Or for what passes as celebrity in the orchid world. How do you feel about that work adding to your reputation? Was it an accurate portrayal of the people you mention above?

Beyond that, I have always found you to be open and honest, and you have always answered any question I have asked of you. But I am not a taxonomist, and really have no business toying with the ideas. Since I do not understand the science and have no real time to learn it, I avoid it for the most part. But there are those who do make the attempt to learn it, and it seems to me while they are learning and asking questions, they often get very terse and sometimes insulting responses from the people making the decisions.

(And I am not talking about taxonomy *students *who label themselves taxonomists, and who just regurgitate the work of others, correct or incorrect, as fact. This is blatantly obvious and past the point of ridiculous by now.)



Braem said:


> 1) If _P. kovachii_ would have been named _P. Gerorgebushii,_ no-one in the USA who have criticised Selby, Higgins, Kovach in any respect (at least not at the time), and the US authorities would have told Peru to go fly a kite. And Eric Christenson would never have made a fuzz about the thing if Kovach would have asked _him_ to describe the plant as_ P. kovachii._
> 
> 2) what is a "dubious nature of description"? Who decides what "dubious" is?
> As I have written on other occassions (and have been scolded for), I will write here again: morality (whatever it may mean), political correctness (whatever that may mean), and many other things are nothing but *very subjective* entities "accepted" by _certain people _in _certain places_ at _certain times._ They may (and are) different between peoples, places and times. I can give you plenty of examples from many parts of history .....


 
I think if you accept that morality and other concepts are subjective, you have to be most accepting of questions pointed at you. I am not saying that people have no right to keep secrets, but if you don't believe in certain methods of living that most of the other population believes in, then you have to be willing to explain why. And this is how I feel most people in the orchid world with something to teach fail. They get so frustrated being asked "why" all the time, that they get angry, or respond out of frustration. I have to say Dr. Braem, I have heard many stories about your infamous temper. I have not found you to be anything but courteous. I would hope that over the next few pages of this thread, we could dig into some real discussion about all the problems associated with taxonomy and orchids, and speak very openly about subjects that have sparked arguments in the past.



Braem said:


> And a question: is there any spellchecking function for these messages?


 
Yes. When composing a message in the window, there is a button on the right hand side, just above the smiley faces that says abc with a check mark underneath it. It will direct you to visit www.iespell.com and download a tool that will check any text typed in Internet Explorer. I hope this helps.


----------



## Braem (Nov 12, 2006)

*Various*



PHRAG said:


> I would go so far as to say that this is a problem in pretty much every aspect of the orchid world, from scientists on down to hobbyists. I would also add that I think the internet aggrivates these problems, and makes them ten times worse. I think it's alot harder to call someone ignorant, or worse, when you are standing right in front of them. Though, I can think of a few people I hope I never meet at an orchid show. My mouth has a tendency to say the most insulting things in real life. And most of the time, they are true.



Well that makes the two of us ... and those who know me personally know that I call a cat a cat. And yes, that is true for all levels, and not only in Orchid Taxonomy. 



PHRAG said:


> Do you think this has anything to do with reputations, true or untrue? I will admit Dr. Braem, the first I heard of you was from the book Orchid Fever. Your inclusion in that book, as well as that of Cribb and Popow, elevates you to a status of "celebrity" to some extent. Or for what passes as celebrity in the orchid world. How do you feel about that work adding to your reputation? Was it an accurate portrayal of the people you mention above?



Yes. Unfortunately, the German translation of the book was very bad and falsified the citations. I did not read any other translations. I know Cribb tried to stop the book in England.



PHRAG said:


> Beyond that, I have always found you to be open and honest, and you have always answered any question I have asked of you. But I am not a taxonomist, and really have no business toying with the ideas. Since I do not understand the science and have no real time to learn it, I avoid it for the most part. But there are those who do make the attempt to learn it, and it seems to me while they are learning and asking questions, they often get very terse and sometimes insulting responses from the people making the decisions.
> 
> (And I am not talking about taxonomy *students *who label themselves taxonomists, and who just regurgitate the work of others, correct or incorrect, as fact. This is blatantly obvious and past the point of ridiculous by now.)



Well, yes, I agree with you. If someone asks a question, he/she will get an answer from me (and I am not that often in a bad mood, inspite of 32 years of marriage). What I object to is the people that post things on their website and design it as if it is the word of some god, whereby they have it blatantly wrong. On an other forum there was a question of how many types there can be for one genus. Someone, a nice guy actually, but obviously devoid of any taxonomic knowledge answered that question and had it wrong. That person should not have answered that question as he obviously did not have a clou. And if he wanted to answer the question, he could have asked me or some other taxonomist, or could have looked it up in the Code. That is what I get angry at. And when I look at the orchid sites on the web, I often don't know whether I should have a heart attack or a stroke first. And those people act as if their website is taxonomically correct. Very often, they don't even have the spelling of the names right. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't always use a spell checker either, but then I don't claim to have a taxonomically correct website. 
I have offered (free of charge) my help to some of those webmasters ... None ever reacted to my email
And by the way, if you have to answer the same question for the 257th time it can get on your nerves. I have always wondered why so few orchid enthousiasts buy books? 
And some people are very slow at comprehension. It took 30 years to convince people that "Phrag. schlimii Wilcox" and "Phrag. schlimii Birchwood" are hybrids. Even some wellknown growers have submitted hybrids as species for judging and gotten awards on their plants. (Not only the example I give above, but alsp Paph. volonteanum, Phrag. hirtzii, etc. etc.). 



PHRAG said:


> I think if you accept that morality and other concepts are subjective, you have to be most accepting of questions pointed at you. I am not saying that people have no right to keep secrets, but if you don't believe in certain methods of living that most of the other population believes in, then you have to be willing to explain why. And this is how I feel most people in the orchid world with something to teach fail. They get so frustrated being asked "why" all the time, that they get angry, or respond out of frustration. I have to say Dr. Braem, I have heard many stories about your infamous temper. I have not found you to be anything but courteous. I would hope that over the next few pages of this thread, we could dig into some real discussion about all the problems associated with taxonomy and orchids, and speak very openly about subjects that have sparked arguments in the past.



I will be the last to deny my temper. However, lots of people mistake my booming voice for "yelling". That has been so since I was a child and I have grown sick of explaining that. When my temper rises (admittedly), no-one asks for the reason. All they do is talk about my "infamous" temper. When someone openly and repeatedly calls me a thief and is not willing to present the evidence, I will get angry. And I always maintained that I am allergic against stupidity. And there is no lack of that about (If you don't believe me, just look up what Einstein said about that). People forget too often that a reaction is always caused by an action (otherwies it would not be called "reaction"). And people often forget that even taxonomists are only humans [but don't quote me on that.]. And before I forget: I am in good company in respect to my temper: John Lindley, Thomas Henry Huxley, Joseph Dalton Hooker, Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach, Newton, etc.



PHRAG said:


> Yes. When composing a message in the window, there is a button on the right hand side, just above the smiley faces that says abc with a check mark underneath it. It will direct you to visit www.iespell.com and download a tool that will check any text typed in Internet Explorer. I hope this helps.



I am afraid it isn't there on my computer. I am working with Netscape. I will try to work with Internet Explorer.

regards
Guido


----------



## Mahon (Nov 12, 2006)

Braem said:


> 1) If _P. kovachii_ would have been named _P. Gerorgebushii,_ no-one in the USA who have criticised Selby, Higgins, Kovach in any respect (at least not at the time), and the US authorities would have told Peru to go fly a kite. And Eric Christenson would never have made a fuzz about the thing if Kovach would have asked _him_ to describe the plant as_ P. kovachii._



Are you kidding, Eric Christenson makes a 'fuzz' about everything! 

I will start reading over this thread, it is quite interesting.

-Pat


----------



## Braem (Nov 13, 2006)

*Etc.*

Pat, you may have a point there. I saw some of his letters. One to Lightbinders when they released the "Orchids of the New World" CD-ROM.
And compared to his temper and language, mine is that of a Roman Catholic Convent Girl school.

I have never been able to figure out why Eric has such hatred towards Selby and what made Selby declare Eric _persona non grata._

regards
Guido






Mahon said:


> Are you kidding, Eric Christenson makes a 'fuzz' about everything!
> 
> I will start reading over this thread, it is quite interesting.
> 
> -Pat


----------



## Mahon (Nov 13, 2006)

Braem said:


> Pat, you may have a point there. I saw some of his letters. One to Lightbinders when they released the "Orchids of the New World" CD-ROM.
> And compared to his temper and language, mine is that of a Roman Catholic Convent Girl school.
> 
> I have never been able to figure out why Eric has such hatred towards Selby and what made Selby declare Eric persona non grata.



Guido,

I too have seen some of E.A. Christenson's "angry letters"... some were sent to Luer, Dalstrom, Higgins, Holst, and Lowman (ex-pres.)... I read some of his letters, and there was absolutely no reason for them. Most of them are just made up nonsense... I won't go into specifics, but will try and find a few copies of them. We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"... 

The reason Eric has much hatred towards Selby is because he is not allowed to come here. He writes those "angry letters", accusing affiliates of Selby of wrong doing. I believe he even wrote an untruthful letter to the AOS and another organization, which caused a bit of trouble here (again, won't go into specifics until I find the letters again).

All he really has to do is just talk with the people he wrote the "angry letters" to, and clear everything up... he has a great medical problem for an excuse! 

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 13, 2006)

Dr. Braem-
Ever considered working with the genus Cypripedium?


----------



## Braem (Nov 13, 2006)

Yes ... but I just did not get to it. But I am willing to look at any specific problems. One of the problems is that I don't have enough reference pictures etc. 

Guido



kentuckiense said:


> Dr. Braem-
> Ever considered working with the genus Cypripedium?


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 13, 2006)

Braem said:


> Yes ... but I just did not get to it. But I am willing to look at any specific problems. One of the problems is that I don't have enough reference pictures etc.
> 
> Guido



Dr. Braem-
I agree with the sentiment that there are not enough reference photos. I've been trying forever to track down a photo of C. subtropicum. I can only assume that there is only one photo and it is currently locked away in the catacombs of Kew.


----------



## VAAlbert (Dec 6, 2006)

Mahon wrote:



> ...We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"...
> 
> ...he has a great medical problem for an excuse!



I really don't like these ad hominem statements. If you think ill of demeaning statements that might have come from Eric, why do you then write your own?

If you are associated with Selby, you are doing that institution a severe disservice.

Sincerely,

Vic Albert


----------



## slippertalker (Dec 6, 2006)

VAAlbert said:


> Mahon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Vic, 

Pat has been booted from this forum, so you won't be seeing any response from him on this..... My personal opinion on Eric is mostly favorable, he's a likeable guy and has strong opinions as many of us do. Some of the problems with Selby evolved from the Phrag kovachii debacle and some other problems both with Selby and AOS. In sum, not too different from many of us!


----------



## Paphman910 (Dec 6, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Guido,
> 
> I too have seen some of E.A. Christenson's "angry letters"... some were sent to Luer, Dalstrom, Higgins, Holst, and Lowman (ex-pres.)... I read some of his letters, and there was absolutely no reason for them. Most of them are just made up nonsense... I won't go into specifics, but will try and find a few copies of them. We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"...
> 
> -P.A. Mahon



Your quote "We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic" is absolutely rude. You are very ignorant and you are being prejuduce against people with this mental illness. I am appalled by your language. People who suffer from mental illness are looked down in society because of ignorant people like you.


Paphman910


----------



## Heather (Dec 6, 2006)

FYI, I've received several emails from former member, Mahon, since being banned. He may not be able to respond, but he seems to still be reading (and threatening), so, I'd say, feel free to continue to reply. Maybe he'll learn something.


----------



## Marco (Dec 6, 2006)

All Mr. Mahon will speak to and hear is now just an echo in a bubble.

----

Anyway back to the topic at hand. I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I don't even know how to pronounced half the words on this thread. Well then again I don't even know how to pronouce the names of half of the paph/phrag species that. I just think the plants cause the flowers look nice 

k carry on


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 14, 2011)

other than the hullaballoo at the end of this, is the discussion of names still valid?


----------



## NYEric (Jul 14, 2011)

look them up!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 14, 2011)

It's not that easy -- it really depends on who you count on as your authority.


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 14, 2011)

lately i've been using http://www.theplantlist.org/


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 15, 2011)

I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.


----------



## Braem (Jul 15, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.


I will ... but not tonight ... it is 2:36 in the morning and I am too tired , just remind me where the thread is.


----------



## Braem (Jul 16, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.


OK, here I come in:

the taxonomy of the Phrag. caudatum group was clarified in detail in an article by Braem, Ohlund and Quené in 2004 (Orquideologíca, Volume 23, No. 2, pages 87-136). If you read that article (there is a Spanish text on pages 87-116, and an English text on pages 117-136), there actually should be no questions left. The Illustrations are in the Spanish text.

In that article we discussed the entire group and I worked with the original literature. That is also why there was a second article in that same issue by me and Sandy Ohlund showing that lots of misunderstandings (such as the description of Phrag. humboldtii by Dressler) resulted from the fact that there were misinterpretations of the original Reichenbach texts which are in German. I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in this group of plants gets that issue of Orquideología. 

You will all understand that I can't post 25 pages of text here ... but I will answer specific questions. Unfortunately, Dressler ..... made Orchid Digest publish an article that confused a lot of people ... I will refrain to comment on that here except for a repeat of my claim: "If you don't understand German, ask someone who does before you write nonsense." Also my late friend Eric did not make the situation easier by claiming that Phrag warsziwiczii (whatever he meant by that) is a separate entity ... (Even if it were, it would be invalid because "warszewiczii" is nothing but another grammatic form of "warszewiczianum". 

I will have this treatment and the rest of the genus in my Phrag book, but I will not complete it until I have a publisher, or until there is a sponsor who is willing to finance a print-on-demand edition.

If you get the English texts of the articles (maybe scanned by someone) make sure you have him/her scan the pages with the illustrations from the Spanish texts.

As it is, there are the following valid species:
Phragmipedium caudatum
Phragmipedium lindenii
Phragmipedium exstaminodium
Phragmipedium popowii
Phragmipedium warszewiczianum

now shoot away with your questions ... and I will answer them one by one.

(I hope there are not too many typos in this posting)


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 16, 2011)

Thanks, Dr. Braem.

So is this correct?:
Phragmipedium caudatum
Phragmipedium lindenii
Phragmipedium exstaminodium
Phragmipedium popowii (formerly known as warszewiczianum, warceswiczii)
Phragmipedium warszewiczianum (formerly known as wallisii)

I found these notes I made some time ago:

From Stephen Manza:
According to traditional usage, the easiest way to distinguish between these 3 species/ varieties is to look at the color of the flower, especially the lip.

caudatum - greenish-yellow flower, lip greenish-yellow with brown near the rim 
ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragcaudatum1.jpg
"A large number of varieties or geographical forms of this species appear in the literature, the main difference being flower color and size. In addition, several varieties have been described that today are classified as distinct species by a few authors and by the International Registration Authority of Orchid Hybrids."
wallisii (now warscewiczianum) - yellowish flower, lip creamy ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwallisii2.jpg
"The variety is distinguished from the normal form of P. caudatum by the following traits: staminode three-lobed, acuminate lateral lobes arching backwards; mouth of labellum yellow, spotted brown; margin of petals glabrous; smaller flowers." 
warscewiczianum (now popowii)- yellowish-brown flower, lip with yellowish background and a very dark brown area near the rim. ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwarscewiczianum3.jpg
"Dark green leaves shorter and wider than those of other members of the section; usually only one to three flowers; flower color is more dark brown; staminode smooth, and long trapezoid to almost rhomboid in shape; mouth of labellum is yellow-brown."


----------



## Braem (Jul 17, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Thanks, Dr. Braem.
> 
> So is this correct?:
> Phragmipedium caudatum
> ...


Your listing is fully correct. The name "wallisii" was (and probably still is) erroneously applied for the plant that was originally described as warszewiczianum. Therefore wallisii is a synonym. But this also meant that there was also need for a new name for the plant formerly in cultivation as warzewiczianum, and that name is P. popowii.

And about "traditional use" (your quote of Stephen Manza) ... traditional use does not mean that it is correct. 

The only alternative to the list above is to regards the ENTIRE complex as A SINGLE species (P. caudatum) and then consider the rest as subspecies or varieties or whatever. At the time we discussed our article, we discussed that possibility, but rejected it for many reasons (among which were: the anticipated non-acceptance by both amateur growers and commercial growers - acceptedly not a scientific argument). But considering all one species would be especially a problem for lindenii and exstaminodium.

One last comment on your note: The International Authority of Orchid Hybrids is not a botanical authority, and in fact a self-destined horticultural authority which has made some very, very obscure and/or irrational decisions.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 17, 2011)

One thing I'm not clear about is sanderianum. Is that another one that is simply caudatum? I have one opening now, but from the description from Stephen and Sandy, it looks like caudatum. Or what's the difference???


----------



## Braem (Jul 18, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> One thing I'm not clear about is sanderianum. Is that another one that is simply caudatum? I have one opening now, but from the description from Stephen and Sandy, it looks like caudatum. Or what's the difference???


That is a "variant" of P. caudatum ... in my opinion just horticultural designation. It is usually marketed as P. caudatum "sanderae" .


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 18, 2011)

Braem said:


> That is a "variant" of P. caudatum ... in my opinion just horticultural designation. It is usually marketed as P. caudatum "sanderae" .



Ah -- OK. Thanks!


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 22, 2011)

The plot thickens!

A Nomenclatural Note on Cypripedium humboldtii (Orchidaceae: Cypripedioideae)
Pupulin & Dressler
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3100/025.016.0103


----------



## poozcard (Aug 22, 2011)

gonewild said:


> If it looks different, the name should different.
> 
> Your way is best. Making 5 distinct species.
> 
> ...



Can this concept of species be applicable for Paphs too?
:drool:


----------



## Braem (Aug 22, 2011)

kentuckiense said:


> The plot thickens!
> 
> A Nomenclatural Note on Cypripedium humboldtii (Orchidaceae: Cypripedioideae)
> Pupulin & Dressler
> http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3100/025.016.0103


The problem is that you need to read Braem & Ohlund and Braem, Ohlund & Quené from 2004 ... In there it is made clear that "Cypripedium humboldtii" was never described. Dressler & Populin should learn German before they comment on German publications.


----------



## Braem (Aug 22, 2011)

poozcard said:


> Can this concept of species be applicable for Paphs too?
> :drool:


Why not?


----------



## poozcard (Aug 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> Why not?



I have a personal believe that the west coast P.godefroyae is distinct from the east coast cousin (which is the type gode)

have to collect more evidence


----------

