# Phrag. Kovachii survivive



## Lars Pedersen (Dec 17, 2011)

Just for your info...

The proposal to reject Phrag. kovachii has been rejected.

The proposal was made in Taxon 55 (4) November 2006.

Phrag. kovachii remains valid and effectice. The reference is Taxon 60 (4) - August 2011: page 1212

Merry Christmas
Lars


----------



## Marc (Dec 17, 2011)

This has to do with the naming of this species right?


----------



## Heather (Dec 17, 2011)

Unfortunate.


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 17, 2011)

Heather said:


> Unfortunate.



If this has to do with the naming, then my understanding is that was the correct decision. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the convention of naming the plant based on a "race to publish" scheme does not include exceptions when the plant was obtained without proper permits. You may not agree with what Kovach did, but the naming system acted the way it was designed to do.

In any "race" scheme, there is generally going to be a party who is behind. It's like the old saying goes, "You snooze, you lose!"


----------



## Heather (Dec 17, 2011)

Yup, I still think it's unfortunate though.


----------



## physiognomy (Dec 17, 2011)

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I couldn't find any mention of P. kovachii???

Taxon, Volume 60, Number 4, August 2011 , pp. 1211-1214(4)


----------



## Lars Pedersen (Dec 18, 2011)

Hi

Yes it has to do with the naming, and Gcroz you said it very precise.


The code of Botanical Nomenclaure says that once it has been described validly and effectively, it cannot be ruled out.

Physiognomy, page 1212 under item 5


Lars


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 18, 2011)

Heather said:


> Yup, I still think it's unfortunate though.



Why do you think it is unfortunate? The system did what it was supposed to do and Kovach got his name on a plant. The way I look at it is that the "race system" fosters discovery and quick publication of findings! At least if you want your name on it.

Actually, I think it is quite exciting to see the system work and because he won the "race," Kovach does deserve to have the name stick. After all, if I remember correctly, he paid quite dearly for that name!


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2011)

I think people don't like Kovach's name on the species becasue he was a smuggler. Regardless of the 'rules of naming'. 

On a slightly different topic of naming, what about Paph. Ho Chi Minh? Not an acceptable name to some, but it still sticks. It's a hybrid, yes, but it still got accepted according to the rules, even if some don't like the name.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 18, 2011)

Kevin said:


> I think people don't like Kovach's name on the species becasue he was a smuggler. Regardless of the 'rules of naming'.



He was a smuggler like Veitch, Sander, etc...


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 19, 2011)

Oh yes, for sure he was a smuggler. But, not all smuggling can be bad. For example, how many species would be/ will be lost to history if people didn't smuggle them out of areas slated for deforestation? 

Seems to me, in my experience, that in many countries in which orchids are found, people just don't care how many orchids are destroyed in order to make housing projects, roads, farms, etc. Therefore, if a smuggler takes plants, has them described and announced to the world, does it really matter that he took plants now that those plants are known and can be propagated? Honestly, I find it more deplorable when locals extirpate species from areas with no regards to the survival of the species in its habitat.

I won't pretend to know what Kovach's motive was, other than to get his name on the plant. What followed, with regards to the removal of plants from the habitat, was not his fault. The days of Veitch and Sander, as previously mentioned, are somewhat over and I think an unfair comparison. I can't remember the last time I saw crates of smuggled orchids arriving in the U.S. or Europe to be sold at auction. On the flip-side, we hear a lot on this Forum of shipments of plants, taken by locals, shipped to flower markets across Asia.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate again and pose this question:

Which of you, if you were in Kovach's position, wouldn't be strongly tempted to smuggle that plant and maybe get your name on it? Which of you would have gone ahead and smuggled it risking the penalties?

I think, knowing what _kovachii_ looks like, I would have done what he did! But then again, I'm greedy for orchids and I sometimes have issues with egotism.:evil:


----------



## NYEric (Dec 19, 2011)

Certainly not me!


----------



## tocarmar (Dec 19, 2011)

I probably would have done the same thing!! 
Look what happened to Paph. delenatii as another example!! And so many others from raping the natural habitat!! How many are lost, and how many may never be discovered!!


----------



## nikv (Dec 19, 2011)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there ought to be an exception process to the rule. My parents didn't raise me to think fondly of cheats and liars. They shouldn't be rewarded. Just my opinion.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 19, 2011)

The difference with kovach was that he did not discover the plant. He bought it from a local person. So why should he get his name on it?
The plants were not from deforestation areas so that justification does not apply.

Kovach could have taken the plant to a Peruvian botanist for the identification and still had his name on it if that is what he wanted. But then he probably would have been told that someone else was already working on the description.


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 19, 2011)

gonewild said:


> The difference with kovach was that he did not discover the plant. He bought it from a local person. So why should he get his name on it?
> The plants were not from deforestation areas so that justification does not apply.



I see your point, however I was addressing the fact that he smuggled the plant. My point regarding discovery of plants is that many "discoverers" were also smugglers in the pay of wealthy Europeans. I never made any statements that Kovach used a claim of deforestation. I was merely discussing that not all plant smugglers are cut from the same cloth.

Why should he get his name on it? Because that's the way the system works and he (at least the authors did) beat the others to publication. Honestly, if not for the importance of this flower, would we even be talking about this situation?


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 19, 2011)

nikv said:


> My parents didn't raise me to think fondly of cheats and liars. They shouldn't be rewarded. Just my opinion.



The world would truly be a very different place if cheats and liars weren't rewarded for their efforts.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 19, 2011)

Politicians and lawyers for example!


----------



## Gcroz (Dec 19, 2011)

NYEric said:


> Politicians and lawyers for example!



Hey, I resemble that remark! :evil:


----------



## NYEric (Dec 19, 2011)

Sorry, a little.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 19, 2011)

Gcroz said:


> I see your point, however I was addressing the fact that he smuggled the plant. My point regarding discovery of plants is that many "discoverers" were also smugglers in the pay of wealthy Europeans. I never made any statements that Kovach used a claim of deforestation. I was merely discussing that not all plant smugglers are cut from the same cloth.
> 
> Why should he get his name on it? Because that's the way the system works and he (at least the authors did) beat the others to publication. Honestly, if not for the importance of this flower, would we even be talking about this situation?



I reality I agree with you. oke:

The drama surrounding P.kovachii certainly will be a part of the intrigue of plant history.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 19, 2011)

Gcroz said:


> The world would truly be a very different place if cheats and liars weren't rewarded for their efforts.



Is that good or bad? :noangel:


----------

