# Current Checklist of Phragmipedium Species



## Lance Birk (Jun 29, 2008)

In the newest edition of the Cymbidium Society of America _Journal_ for July/August 2008 is a complete and updated Checklist of the genus compiled by Kenneth P. Jacobsen, Ph.D.

If you do not receive the _Journal_ you can contact the editor, Heidi Kirpatrick at: [email protected]


----------



## Kyle (Jun 29, 2008)

Is dalessandroi seperated from besseae?

Kyle


----------



## Heather (Jun 29, 2008)

ooh! Good question, Kyle!!


----------



## Ernie (Jun 29, 2008)

What does HE call the darker, long petaled species most of us know as warscewiczianum? 

-Ernie


----------



## Kyle (Jun 29, 2008)

Also, it hard to ask this without sounding rude, but who is he? What credintials does he have for writing a checklist of the genus? Is this just a journal review, or has he spent some time studying herbariums and plant samples? Do you have a bio for him?

Just curious.

Kyle


----------



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Jul 4, 2008)

Exactly the same questions popped up in my head after reading the first message, Kyle.
I suspect it to be "just a journal review" because the journal of a Cymbidium society seems a bit odd a place to publish a 'serious' review/checklist of Slipper Orchids. My two cents.


P.S. I just read the message after being out of the country for two weeks.

Rob


----------



## NYEric (Jul 4, 2008)

Welcome home Smitty! oke:


----------



## Lance Birk (Jul 9, 2008)

The phrag ckecklist is based on Kew's interpretation of the species. It is printed for the convenience of those who are interested.

There will be a similar checklist of paphs in the next two issues of the Journal, starting Sep-Oct. 

The CSA Journal is one of the oldest orchid magazines and is heavily invested in paphiopedilums and other slipper orchids. If you haven't seen a copy lately, the new editor, Heidi Kirkpatrick, has made great improvements that definitely enhance each new issue.

Membership is only $35 and instructions on signing up are on the CSA website, for those who would like to learn more.

http://www.cymbidium.org/


----------



## labskaus (Jul 9, 2008)

I just had a look at Kew's and got the impression that the way they treat the genus is certainly unusual and different from what I've seen before.

Like, keeping chapadense as an accepted name but lumping a whole bunch of described varieties, species and forms, like hartwegii or christiansenianum and their likes into longifolium looks inconsequent to me.
Same with lindleyanum, where kaiaterum and sargentianum are melted in (which is fine with me), but on the other hand czerwiakowianum is kept as a variety of boissierianum and reticulatum even as an accepted species.

And my personal highlight is the name *warszewiczianum* for the one formerly known as wallisii, and maintenance of the name *warszewiczii* for the central american species. That's a certain way to avoid confusion :rollhappy: and a naming variant for these species I haven't seen before, and there were quite a few in the past few years. Quite funny, actually.

What can I say? Cheers!

Carsten


----------



## Lance Birk (Jul 10, 2008)

I think that one purpose for providing the phrag checklist is to invite comments from orchid growers who have genuine and serious questions about the placement, naming and the identities of the listed species.

When the Paphiopedilum checklist is published, I for one, will be very interestred in reading comments listed on this forum.

It has always bothered me that Kew botanists base their identifications solely on dead, damaged, decomposed (on a continuous basis) herbarium specimens and have continuously resisted any modernization of their tools and criteria. While herb sheets are useful, they all have their problems which include missing or insufficient data, some are described with a single sentence, ....or even with just a three or four word location. Herb sheets require a lot of guesswork! It's this guesswork that causes us orchid growers problems.

The current questions on this forum about P. godefroyae and P. leucochilum are a perfect example. Phil Cribb never went to the Gulf or Siam or the Gulf of Krabi. I don't know of any taxonomist who has. All current opinions, except my own (see my paph book, pgs 42-45), are based upon herb sheets housed at Kew and the interpretations of Kew botanists. There remains considerable confusion because of this.

I have been to the Gulf of Siam and the Gulf of Krabi, on two separate explorations. I have traveled over the Tennaserrim Mtn Range and experienced the great divide as I went from one location to the other. 

Do you know the difference between chalk and cheese? How about night and day?

Once seen and 'touched' is is a very simple matter for anyone to imediately understand the differences between these two species.

Like I said, herb sheets are useful, BUT they only tell part of the story. For anyone to base judgement strictly upon their use is an injustice to modern science and a dereliction of duty to the orchid world.

The current practice of breeders who try to 'improve' species, such as the above two (and several others) by inter-crossing lookalike but separate species has led to serious problems with identifications of many orchids.......but don't get me started.

That's my opinion.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 10, 2008)




----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 10, 2008)

Is the CSA journal the same as the Orchid Advocate? If so, it has had some good serious articles in the past. In fact, that was the journal in which Koopowits published his diagnosis of P. emersonii, back in 1986.....Eric


----------



## ORG (Jul 10, 2008)

Dear Eric,
it is the same journal.

Olaf


----------



## Lance Birk (Jul 11, 2008)

Sorry to disagree Olaf, but the Orchid Advocate was started by Jack Wilson in the late 1960s or early 1970s; I don't have my library here so I can't check the date of first issue. It was a magazine devoted to paphs but it also had other content at times.

While the CSA Journal has beeb lightly regarded for its seemingly one-topic content in the past, it has in fact, often published good quality and meaningful articles about other genera. Paphiopedilums have remained one of those principle genera, for many years.

Unlike content on the Internet, magazines (and books) continue to remain the only sources of consistantly reliable information and the new editor of the Journal is working diligently to improve the quality of articles and photographs, as well as the appearanceof the magazine. Orchid growers who value their collections and who wish to keep informed ought to consider subscribing.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 12, 2008)

Lance Birk said:


> The current practice of breeders who try to 'improve' species, such as the above two (and several others) by inter-crossing lookalike but separate species has led to serious problems with identifications of many orchids.......but don't get me started.
> 
> That's my opinion.


You Go Lance!!!!....I agree totally!!!


----------



## tenman (Aug 13, 2008)

>The current practice of breeders who try to 'improve' species, such as the >above two (and several others) by inter-crossing lookalike but separate >species has led to serious problems with identifications of many >orchids......

>Once seen and 'touched' is is a very simple matter for anyone to imediately >understand the differences between these two species.

Glad to hear you say both of the above. This is exactly the case with Paphs.roebbelinii and philippinense. A look in Koopowitz's first OD checklist gives a good reference point; these two are very different species, but so much inbreeding has been done I sincerely doubt that other than old collected cultivars, a pure roebbelinii and a pure philippinense can't be found, though most are mostly roebbelinii now, prized for its longer, twisted petals, a trait philippinense lacks.

Don't get ME started....


----------



## NYEric (Aug 14, 2008)

Mystery phrag = dalessandroi! 
My opinion on this is if it doesn't have drooping lateral petals, orangey color and yellow 'flare' or 'burst' from the center on the dorsal and petals then its a hybrid. I don't know whether it's natural hybridization or lack of carefull breeding but soon lots of plants will not be what they're advertised to be and gene testing will become a requirement for judging!


----------

