# 'The Scent of Scandal" discussion



## Gcroz (May 7, 2012)

I finished reading _The Scent of Scandal_ which is a book about the _kovachii_ discovery and resulting legal battle. I highly recommend this book, although I'm sure some members may take issues with some of the contents.

I'd like to start a discussion about this book here! I think that it is a very fair account of the story. I think that it makes a lot of points about the orchid world that are interesting. So let's discuss!

I'll start the discussion with this questions:

Many of you have stated that you believe that you do not tolerate "cheats and liars." However, given the chance to have a plant like PK named after you, wouldn't you take the chance? Is it really so bad what Kovach did?


----------



## Rick (May 7, 2012)

I could see doing it for species conservation or even money, but naming rights is the last thing I'd see worth while to go to jail for.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (May 7, 2012)

I'm reading it right now......I'm just at p.103. I love this book....well written, well paced, and I love the descriptions of the characters. I particularly like his descriptions of George Norris and Peter Croezen, whom I haven't met personally but gotten to know through email correspondence ....I'm not expert enough on all of these people to fully judge accuracy, but I do think the author is attempting to be as fair as possible to all of them.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (May 7, 2012)

I just bought the book this weekend....I'll catch up with you guys after I read it.


----------



## Roth (May 8, 2012)

I should have a look at it, however, as I know the market better than pretty much anyone in this world:

- ALL Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium described since the 80's came from smugglers. There is no known exception to that absolute rule. After, it was to the botanical gardens or individuals to accept it, and describe it, sustaining their job, the amount of species per year they were describing to sustain their position in some botanical gardens or institutions, or even their position in the orchid world, or to refuse it, and go down to the black sink. Some 'taxonomists' that are very famous only describe new species to attract customers to sell plants. They then make a link between a nursery and the people who contacted them, and take a good profit on the way. I know at least one that earned most of his money like that, and I know it personally.

- Some others ( like phragmipedium peruvianum as an example...) just bought the plants from a collector, and described it afterwards. I do not see, myself, any difference between those two groups of people, except that Kovach brought out the plant to USA, where the others left it in Peru, however both were wild collected by a professional collector... The damage to the wild would be equal in both cases.

- The kovachii was illegally imported to the USA, that's true. If we are talking about psychotic people who care only about paperwork, it is definitely correct. However I do not see, again, any difference between a wild collected plant smuggled, and a wild collected plant precultivated, laundered, then imported with a CITES, like those blooming size kovachii sold in the USA lately. 

The damage to the wild is the same, except that it makes CITES look like fools. The problem being too that most people do believe that 'fair and honest' and 'legal' are the same thing, where there is a wide array of shades in between. What is legal ( dozen of tons of wild orchids sent with CITES and all the proper paperwork to China for traditional medicine) is not always fair, and what is fair and ethic in a way (smuggling a plant and propagating it, like all the mexipedium and sanderianum so far...) is not always legal.

- There has never been any kovachii for sale at 10.000USD. At the very same time the plant of kovachii entered Selby, Manuel Arias was offering a new pink phrag for 100USD. All of his customers interested in phrags got his handwritten fax, including me, and many other nurseries. So, unless you took a crazy fool, all the players knew it was easy to buy, and not expensive.

- The only massive collections for trade have been performed by nurseries in Peru and Ecuador, apart from one that landed in Taiwan ( and died, as it was too hot). There has never been big quantities of kovachii in Europe, or Japan, or the USA, 'stored for sale', that's a lie... Now, the quantity brought by Kovach was apparently ridiculous, we are talking about one or maybe a handful of plants, which is way lower than the amount of wild kovachii illegally traded, then legally traded after being laundered, by one famous nursery in Peru... which is funnily respected for their efforts to protect that species. Go figure...


----------



## JeanLux (May 8, 2012)

Roth said:


> I should have a look at it, however, as I know the market better than pretty much anyone in this world...



I am still waiting for your book(s) Xavier !!!! All those posts from you that I collected would make up for one of them !!!!! Jean


----------



## s1214215 (May 8, 2012)

Wasnt there a book written some time back Xavier, where you were a main character LOL... I have been told this many a time. 

I agree with you, way to much Bullsh*t on the fly. I dont know if Kovach was the scoudrel he is played to be, but I will say this. CITES is crap, defunct, and irrellevant in many ways for plants. 

I can vouch that CITES in several South East Asian nations in on the take. If are the right person, they will write you a permit for a Cymbidium, when you walked in with a Vanda.


----------



## Gcroz (May 8, 2012)

Rick said:


> I could see doing it for species conservation or even money, but naming rights is the last thing I'd see worth while to go to jail for.



I agree, it is probably the least important thing to go to jail for. But as the owner of a small, and growing , nursery I sympathize with Kovach. He also had a small nursery and having a plant such as PK would bring a lot of notoriety to his business. However, based on his actions, the notoriety he got was not what he wanted. He clearly knew what he was doing, but I think that given the opportunity I would have done the same thing. I just would have handled the problems with the government differently.

One topic the book does a good job of bringing to light is the "Catch-22" of CITES and new species. If a slipper, unknown, is discovered, it is illegal to harvest it for taxonomic description or scientific study. You cannot get CITES permits for plants unless you have a name. This makes the whole issue very complicated and unreasonably so. Of course, this makes no loophole for collecting the unnamed species, but it would seem that the plant would be better being "known" to science.


----------



## NYEric (May 8, 2012)

I believe that there are still paph species that have been collected but are not named


----------



## Gcroz (May 8, 2012)

NYEric said:


> I believe that there are still paph species that have been collected but are not named



I'm sure of it... but it is a shame none the less.


----------



## NYEric (May 8, 2012)

The un-uniform enforcement of the treaties is a big problem. That, plus corruption, plus a lack of plant experience/knowledge is making a farce of CITES.


----------



## Candace (May 10, 2012)

Make a cross and name it after yourself if so inclined. Grow a plant and name the awarded cultivar after yourself. It's kind of a pity one feels their "name" is so important to sully it in such a derogatory manner as Kovach did. Better yet, get over yourself to think your name is so important and noteworthy, anyway. :>


----------



## mormodes (May 10, 2012)

Does anyone think the author got any of it wrong? I think he may have mischaracterized Glen Decker, not that Glen is a central figure in the story by any means I hasten to add. But I just can't think of Glen as a crafty businessman. I always think of him as a nice guy with a big smile on his face. That's the only disjoint in the author's telling of the story that I can think of.


----------



## bullsie (May 10, 2012)

I have not read the book - and presently just don't have the time. But I have to comment regarding the inspection of 'incomming'.



NYEric said:


> plus a lack of plant experience/knowledge is making a farce of CITES.



Who does the inspecting now? At one time, they were folks trained in that field, but after 9/11 that all changed. All but a handful of inspectors were transfered to homeland security division. All those botanists (and folks who are expert at bugs and probably a few other fields) went from plant/product inspection to people inspection. Their expertise didn't limit inspecting plants and seeds. These folks at one time examined things like pallets and crates (some varieties of wood are illegal to use because they harbor insects - now these same products are blatently used, unloaded daily at US docks). 

Wonder why the sudden onslaught of harmful bugs and diseases in this country? Why Homeland Security just didn't train folks for the positions opened instead of taking the experts from their fields of expertise and sending them into a world they absolutely knew nothing about - which they needed trained for - lunacy I suppose comes in all forms.


----------



## Gcroz (May 10, 2012)

Candace said:


> Make a cross and name it after yourself if so inclined. Grow a plant and name the awarded cultivar after yourself. It's kind of a pity one feels their "name" is so important to sully it in such a derogatory manner as Kovach did. Better yet, get over yourself to think your name is so important and noteworthy, anyway. :>



This is true. And I would agree that his name is now tarnished forever, or at least as long as people remember what he did. However, I'll say that the major difference is that having a species named for you puts your name down for the scientific future, a hybrid does not necessarily. Second, I think I can relate to the "fever" one might feel when faced with something so spectacular and the chance to possess it, both physically and in name. This, in my opinion, is similar to Gold Fever, Diamond Fever, and Emerald Fever- when faced with something so covetous, otherwise normal, intelligent people can act completely contrary to those traits and to their own well being.


----------



## Candace (May 10, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> This is true. And I would agree that his name is now tarnished forever, or at least as long as people remember what he did. However, I'll say that the major difference is that having a species named for you puts your name down for the scientific future, a hybrid does not necessarily. Second, I think I can relate to the "fever" one might feel when faced with something so spectacular and the chance to possess it, both physically and in name. This, in my opinion, is similar to Gold Fever, Diamond Fever, and Emerald Fever- when faced with something so covetous, otherwise normal, intelligent people can act completely contrary to those traits and to their own well being.



Very well said.


----------



## Roth (May 10, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> This is true. And I would agree that his name is now tarnished forever, or at least as long as people remember what he did.



Not so sure, we have already some species named after people who have been convicted of smuggling orchids, Paphiopedilum henryanum ( Henry Azadehdel), Phragmipedium popowii, blabla ariasii, etc...

In a way, people though in their times that Azadehdel or Kovach are bad. For Azadehdel, the problem has been solved years ago. He sold expensive plants, 'selected' for many of them really, and 'many' according to the ignorant people of that time.

After a while, we realized that Hsu She Hua, from Kowloon, had exported some dozen thousands micranthum, dozen thousands armeniacum, dozen thousands malipoense, countless pleione, cypripedium, paphiopedilum barbigerum... at the same time, where Azadehdel would have smuggled maybe 200-500 armeniacum, Hsu She Hua, and a handful of other nurseries from Taiwan ( including in those days Taida Orchids...) would smuggle at the very same time dozen of thousands of plants.

In the 90's we realized too that Azadehdel was right, he did not collect rothschildianum and sanderianum in any natural preserve. We realized too that, no matter what he did, it was nothing compared to the megawaves of overcollection boosted by the Taiwanese, the Japanese, the Dutches ( pot plant), the Chinese more recently.

Thinking well, Kovach smuggled a few plants, Arias a few hundreds plants, Portilla a few hundreds plants too. Which one is the worst offender 

In common, Azadehdel and Kovach names are known by most people in the orchid world. I know a dozen different names that are involved in the same trade at a much larger, industrial scale level, and that no one on this forum knows. In this respect, Kovach was just nuts, and a small guy, but nothing to make all that noise around.

Indeed, there has been no paphiopedilum described recently that was from a really 'clean' origin, none... but we still consider the botanists who described the plants and the owner of the original plants as good guys, where they are not better or worse than Kovach indeed... They had to act the same too, use illegally collected material to describe the plant, all of them, and no exception...Paphiopedilum ooii as an example come from a national park, was smuggled from Sabah to Peninsular Malaysia, and the fresh wild plant used to describe it and name it after the collector's customer. The holotype used to describe it has been smuggled too to... Kew... Where is the difference with kovachii ? there is absolutely none.


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2012)

I agree. Unfortunately, the "legal" method of collecting is warped!


----------



## Gcroz (May 10, 2012)

NYEric said:


> I agree. Unfortunately, the "legal" method of collecting is warped!



Thank you Roth, as always you point out interesting things that we in the US may never hear about. Sounds like what we would call "the Wild West" out there in Asian orchid world! 

Eric, here is something that I don't feel the book really explained thoroughly and a topic I have not had time to explore. What exactly are the procedure for collecting unnamed slippers for the purposes of describing them? The book describes it as part of my previously mentioned "Catch-22"- you can't get permits unless you have a name, but if the species is unnamed how can you legally get permits?

I assume that there are cases in which plants of new species have been shipped to growers and thus described after the new plant has been found. I think this was the case with _Phrag. fischeri_. But those events must be a rarity.


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2012)

You cant transport it across borders unless it's named. It could be described in the country its found in.


----------



## Gcroz (May 10, 2012)

NYEric said:


> You cant transport it across borders unless it's named. It could be described in the country its found in.



Aren't you required to have permits to collect them? And if so, is the name requirement waived if in the country of origin?


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2012)

I think that depends on the country. In South America I believe you have to have a collecting permit, Asia...IDK


----------



## Roth (May 10, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> The book describes it as part of my previously mentioned "Catch-22"- you can't get permits unless you have a name, but if the species is unnamed how can you legally get permits?
> 
> I assume that there are cases in which plants of new species have been shipped to growers and thus described after the new plant has been found. I think this was the case with _Phrag. fischeri_. But those events must be a rarity.



It is not quite correct. A country can issue permits for a genus without the species, and origin wild collected. In this case, you can get export/import permits easily. The Scientific Authority of the export country has a look at the specimen, decides if it is a phrag, a paph, or an Appendix II orchid, and issues the permit, no problem, and it did happen for the Vietnamese Paphiopedilum that were described by Averyanov even...

For Paphiopedilum, you can get a permit for a new, undescribed species, for scientifical purposes ( such as describing it), if you, as an importer, are a scientific institution, so there is no problem to move a new, undescribed species, with the proper permits... There are such permits recorded in the CITES Trade Database, but none for paphiopedilum ( there are some, however for other appendix I genera), except to Russia.

Note that for Paphiopedilum ooii, it is very clear that the holotype at Kew ( mentioned K) has been smuggled, as there are no permits to England for Paphiopedilum from Malaysia in that time frame...

Phragmipedium fischerii came first as a 'schlimii with besseae leaves' in the middle of the 90's, and was traded as a schlimii, until it has been found to be a different species. Same for andretteae, and the other one described not long ago ( that are forms of schlimii to my mind).


----------



## Marc (May 11, 2012)

Xavier as I'm from the Netherlands myself I'm quite interested regarding your statement regarding Dutch companies selling Paphs for the pot plant market. Could you tell us more please?


----------



## Heather (May 12, 2012)

Bummer, I don't buy books anymore and it's not available yet as an ebook.


----------



## gonewild (May 12, 2012)

I have not read the book.

I can tell you that Kovack did have options to have the plant identified/described here in Peru. So that is not an excuse to smuggle it out of the country. He would have never been given a permit to collect and remove the undescribed species from Peru legally. BUT he could have purchased his specimens from the local person selling them and taken them to the authorized taxonomist in Peru (only one person). No one would have cared how he acquired the specimens. No one would have asked to see a collecting permit. He could have asked to have it named after himself and would probably have been given that option. To the taxonomist it would have been just another plant.

Kovack did nothing to harm the environment by smuggling the plants out of Peru. There are still wild kovachii growing in Peru. The species is not near extinction. You can still by plants in the roadside markets near Moyobamba. 
prices are higher now $12 for a potted plant or $37.73 for a plant with two spikes. There were 5 available at one shop a couple weeks ago.

Kovack's mistake was rushing the description to ace out the legitimate taxonomists who actually had discovered the species. 

The whole issue is about scientific jealously.


----------



## Scott Ware (May 12, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Kovack's mistake was rushing the description to ace out the legitimate taxonomists who actually had discovered the species.
> 
> The whole issue is about scientific jealously.



Lance, I think you hit the nail on the finger. It's very likely that actions by those who had been aced out by Kovach certainly facilitated the events that followed.


----------



## NYEric (May 14, 2012)

gonewild said:


> You can still buy plants in the roadside markets near Moyobamba. prices are higher now $12 for a potted plant or $37.73 for a plant with two spikes. There were 5 available at one shop a couple weeks ago.



I now hate myself!


----------



## SlipperFan (May 14, 2012)

The following is from Peter Croezen, who has the perspective of someone who was involved in this saga from the beginning:

"Peru at the time of this orchid find, did have two local taxonomists, Eric Christenson and Dave Bennett. Local nurseries were issued collecting permits, but foreign visitors were not. If a local collector did find a "what he believed to be" new species. He/she had to report it to INRENA and the local taxonomists would identify it and give it a name. Unnamed species can not be given a CITES certificate. Thus there was never an opportunity to take an unnamed species out of the country legally and.. there was no need for it, since the new species finds could be identified in Peru itself."


----------



## JeanLux (May 19, 2012)

I got the book today  !! Jean


----------



## Leo_5313 (Jun 13, 2012)

I am reading this book now (I am on page 100)! Here is a link to an article about smuggling that is related; it also summarizes what happened to the Pk case: http://www.msmbb.org.my/apjmbb/html181/181ap.pdf


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 13, 2012)

Interesting summary, Leo. Thanks.


----------



## likespaphs (Jun 13, 2012)

unfortunately Paphiopedilum is misspelled in the abstract


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 14, 2012)

I have read the book and thought that it was an interesting read. It is kinda funny how knowing several of the people in the book that I look at them in a different light now. 

As for my opinion on the sentencing of Kovach, he had to know that he was breaking the law by bringing it in without CITES. But as stated earlier by other people (and in the book) it was not described and did not really fall under the permit. However it is a Phrag and all Phrags are "protected" by CITES. It is true that CITES needs to actually do something other than create paperwork and perhaps work on actual conservation but it is a law that this country follows and Kovach new that. Regardless plants will always come into the country illegally. I was offered Phrag fischeri before it was described by an importer at the Santa Barbara Orchid Show as well as some of the more recent Vietnamese species just within the last couple years. 

Being a legitimate Coral importer I see people trying to cheat the system and paper trail only to get caught, pay the fine and start doing the same thing again. It is somewhat of a joke as far as enforcement. Which brings me to another story from Way-Back-When when birds were legal to import into the US and a certain importer would knock the birds out and stuff hundreds of them into these horrible Grandfather Clocks made in Brazil and ship them up. The birds would not go through quarantine and get out on the market faster so this creep could make more money. Better than half the birds arrived DOA and this person was caught a few times. Got a slap on the wrist and went back to the same thing. I never bought animals from this person but when I heard that this person was now importing and collecting orchids an icy chill went up my spine knowing that thousands of plants were going to be smuggled just like the birds were. Sadly this person ended up with a few plants named after him and will live forever in that regard, too bad they were named after someone doing something illegal. 

That being said, considering that PK was brought into the US illegally it would only be right in my mind if the name of the plant was given a name more appropriate and not one glorifying someone know knowingly committed a crime.

Ok, off the soap box,

Tyler


----------



## Heather (Jun 14, 2012)

Found this on Kindle, just in case anyone else wants a non-book version. $9.99. Yay!


----------



## newbud (Jun 15, 2012)

I wonder if Kovach would have thought to rush up to Selby from Peru if he was not in the company of the Lee's. I really think they influenced his decision and the urgency of getting it to the gardens to name. I also wonder if Christenson's description would have gone through seeing as how it was based on pictures only not from the actual plant. Kovach may have had the time to do it legitimately. Who knows. Would have been interesting though.


----------



## mormodes (Jun 15, 2012)

I think the one facet to the case that wasn't mentioned in the book was the publication of the DNA (for lack of a better word) "fingerprint" for the 3-4 plants allowed to be brought to the USA legally. 

Amazing, the effort put into that plant.


----------



## Leo_5313 (Jun 15, 2012)

mormodes said:


> I think the one facet to the case that wasn't mentioned in the book was the publication of the DNA (for lack of a better word) "fingerprint" for the 3-4 plants allowed to be brought to the USA legally.



Interesting- and the results were published in Orchids in 2005:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/phragmipedium-kovachii-molecular-systematics-of-a-new-world-orchid/

Systematic naming of plants is perhaps *very* different from, e.g., naming bacteria. To do that, one has to performed whole bunch of DNA and biochemical tests to proof that a new bacterial isolate is different (and explain how different) to its closest, published, isolate; and then, the new isolate description paper has to be reviewed by external peers and by a latin linguist and then the isolate has to be deposited in at least two culture collections (e.g., in different countries). All these have to be done BEFORE a peer-reviewed paper can be published (and the name be accepted). Of course, bacteria cannot be easily identified as "new isolates" via morphology alone. 

I came across this- a new genus of orchid was named 'Selbyana' in honor of Selby Gardens in 2010: http://selby.org/about/press/new-genus-orchid-named-selbyana-honor-selby-gardens

And I searched for the taxon keyword 'Phragmipedium' in the Selby's 'Type Specimens Image Collection', http://www.selby.org/research/herbarium, only Phragmipedium besseae came out.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

MorandiWine said:


> As for my opinion on the sentencing of Kovach, he had to know that he was breaking the law by bringing it in without CITES. But as stated earlier by other people (and in the book) it was not described and did not really fall under the permit. However it is a Phrag and all Phrags are "protected" by CITES.



I'm sorry, I completely disagree. The plant was not a Phrag. It was NOTHING, it was an unidentified plant when the export/import occurred. It needs an published scientific description to have a genus and a species and therefore be protected by CITES.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 17, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> I'm sorry, I completely disagree. The plant was not a Phrag. It was NOTHING, it was an unidentified plant when the export/import occurred. It needs an published scientific description to have a genus and a species and therefore be protected by CITES.



Oh yeah, I forgot he brought in Maxilarias......:wink:

I see your point and you are correct but thinking that it was a new genus is a real stretch IMHO. What would you have done if you were in his shoes? Just curious.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> I'm sorry, I completely disagree. The plant was not a Phrag. It was NOTHING, it was an unidentified plant when the export/import occurred. It needs an published scientific description to have a genus and a species and therefore be protected by CITES.



It was an orchid.
All orchid species are listed on CITES.

It was easily identified as a Phrag, that is why he transported it.
All Phrags are CITES1.

Without an official description the Peruvian government would not have issued export permits.

No plants legally enter the USA without a phytosanitary certificate. If he had a false certificate then that is just another offense.

The fact it had no formal species name means nothing under CITES enforcement. It is the importing persons responsibility to make correct species identification BEFORE importing into the USA. This is clearly stated on all plant import permits. 

No export/import occurred if the plant was smuggled and not decvlared.

CITES is a bad law and bad program but it was written well enough to make it difficult to get around. Anyone transporting species across International borders is held accountable under CITES.

Just saying the way it is.


----------



## Gcroz (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> CITES is a bad law and bad program but it was written well enough to make it difficult to get around.



Yup! They had good lawyers to draft the treaty!


----------



## newbud (Jun 17, 2012)

Yeeaaahhh. Not a Phrag.? Com On. He and the Lee's knew exactly what they had. The law that says that no Phragmipediums can leave Peru without a permit is quite clear. I hated the whole mess for Kovach. With all the crap that's been going on in the orchid world the last several years (read Eric Hansen's book) he should not have gone through all the stuff he did along with Selby and those poor people. It was the "perfect storm" legally, presented by the Government against these people and should never have happened. But as we have witnessed here and in the book there are some real crooks out that deserve what he got and more. Too bad.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

I doesn't matter whether it was a new genus, the objective scientific perspective is that until is formally identified, it is an unknown, undescribed organism, and it is not a CITES-inclusive organism. As a real scientist, I take the hard line on such things.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> It was an orchid.
> All orchid species are listed on CITES.



_sensu strictu_, it was not even an orchid until formally described and documented by science.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> The fact it had no formal species name means nothing under CITES enforcement. It is the importing persons responsibility to make correct species identification BEFORE importing into the USA. This is clearly stated on all plant import permits.



It means everything. There can be no correct species identification if the species has not been described by science. It cannot even be considered a plant until formal description. Again, scientist taking the scientific hard line.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

and before people go nuts on me, yes, I understand the common sense perspective of all this.


----------



## Kyle (Jun 17, 2012)

Chris absolutly correct. The only known was that it was a plant. Since it had not been described, we didn't know if CITES applied.

Kyle


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> It means everything. There can be no correct species identification if the species has not been described by science. It cannot even be considered a plant until formal description. Again, scientist taking the scientific hard line.



So as a scientist you can't differentiate between a bird and a plant until someone writes down a description for you? 

I guess scientists and cops both have equally hard lines they follow.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

Kyle said:


> Chris absolutly correct. The only known was that it was a plant. Since it had not been described, we didn't know if CITES applied.
> 
> Kyle



Not correct. No description was needed to key it out as far a the genus. The description was only needed to go beyond genus to determine species.

CITES lists the genus or Phragmipedium and ignores the species within the genus.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Not correct. No description was needed to key it out as far a the genus. The description was only needed to go beyond genus to determine species.
> 
> CITES lists the genus or Phragmipedium and ignores the species within the genus.



Totally incorrect. An organism does not exist in the binomial system until it is formally scientifically described.

So you would know the difference between an unidentified Laelia or Cattleya genus plant without an formal scientific description? Taxonomists still argue to this day about Catt/Laelia plants with holotypes that are how old?

Sorry. I stand by what I said.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> I doesn't matter whether it was a new genus, the objective scientific perspective is that until is formally identified, it is an unknown, undescribed organism, and it is not a CITES-inclusive organism. As a real scientist, I take the hard line on such things.



The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.



Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 18, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> Totally incorrect. An organism does not exist in the binomial system until it is formally scientifically described.



So when scientists claim that rainforest destruction is destroying millions of un-described species they are not truthful? How can a species be destroyed if it does not exist?



> So you would know the difference between an unidentified Laelia or Cattleya genus plant without an formal scientific description? Taxonomists still argue to this day about Catt/Laelia plants with holotypes that are how old?



So then Cattleyas and Laelias don't actually exist? If they are incorrectly described does that mean they could actually be fish?



> Sorry. I stand by what I said.



Why do you apologize for standing by what you said?


----------



## gonewild (Jun 18, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.



I understand your principle. I just like to argue.

But I find it amusing that scientists can't tell the difference between a plant and an animal without reading it.


----------



## Gcroz (Jun 18, 2012)

ChrisFL said:


> Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.



I see what you are saying Chris, and I also see what Lance is saying. I agree with both of you in certain respects. However, CITES is a Treaty and countries that are signatories have laws to enforce the treaty. The common ground is that science and law often do not "have a meeting of the minds!" While scientifically CITES may not make sense to scientists, the legal aspects make sense in the legal world. :evil:


----------



## newbud (Jun 18, 2012)

Chris - Your line is so hard that what you are saying is this hunk of matter does not even exist in our world until some scientist describes it. That's a little too hard and besides it doesn't matter what a scientist thinks, to an officer of some countries' wildlife enforcement department he is going to see it for what it is. How can you ever suppose to change the mind of law enforcement. As Gonewild says just for the sake of argument (I'm paraphrasing). Thanks


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 18, 2012)

Can we all agree that it is a plant?


----------



## hchan (Jun 28, 2012)

gonewild said:


> The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.



I want to send a triffid to the CITES inspectors.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 28, 2012)

Me too!


----------



## newbud (Jun 29, 2012)

> I want to send a triffid to the CITES inspectors.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 30, 2012)

thanks! i'd never heard of a triffid until you posted the above 'poster'. here I was thinking of the fluffy thing from the star trek episode (tribble)


----------



## NYEric (Jun 30, 2012)

Kids!


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Jul 1, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> thanks! i'd never heard of a triffid until you posted the above 'poster'. here I was thinking of the fluffy thing from the star trek episode (tribble)



LOL, me too. Must be a generational thing. :rollhappy:


----------



## Clark (Jul 1, 2012)

Thanks.
Our household didn't know what triffids were either. 
The two of us are in the mid 40s.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 1, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> thanks! i'd never heard of a triffid until you posted the above 'poster'. here I was thinking of the fluffy thing from the star trek episode (tribble)




Tribbles are not endangered so the CITES inspectors would not look at them.


----------



## cnycharles (Jul 1, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Tribbles are not endangered so the CITES inspectors would not look at them.



 ah, but as an invasive or noxious species, they are controlled by cites so their 'commerce' or movement is managed by them. so, they might have to look once in a while 

triffids are probably invasive as well :rollhappy: but,... from the picture I can't tell if they are plant or animal. maybe our binomial nomenclatural system doesn't apply to them?!

*edit - upon further review while washing and bleach rinsing my silverware drawer yet again because of mouse invasion, I realized that the usda and it's branches control movement of invasive or noxious species and not cites, so lance's statement about cites' non-interest in triffids is correct. I was trying to be funny at the time and stretched my memory a bit too far... btw, the new-fangled, rotary contained mouse traps work quite well



mormodes said:


> Does anyone think the author got any of it wrong? I think he may have mischaracterized Glen Decker, not that Glen is a central figure in the story by any means I hasten to add. But I just can't think of Glen as a crafty businessman. I always think of him as a nice guy with a big smile on his face. That's the only disjoint in the author's telling of the story that I can think of.



another way of saying someone is a 'crafty businessman' might be to say that they are a 'shrewd businessperson'. though someone might be placing a bit of emotional context by saying that someone is 'crafty', you could also say that this was describing someone as thinking about all of the angles of a situation, more than most people might be... I know glen somewhat, though not overly personally, and when someone is manning their sales booth or their store, they want people to be welcome and comfortable so that they will spend money! this isn't a negative, it's a good business practice. as someone who has watched vendors behind the scenes at orchid shows and club meetings, there definitely can be a difference behind their presentation when they are selling and when they aren't. I don't have an opinion about any of any orchid vendor's business dealings as I don't make them my business, but I don't think the characterization of someone as a 'crafty businessman' is a negative. it just means they are thinking about all points of a possible business situation, which in reality every business person should do. there is a phrase: 'those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail'  it's tough making money selling orchids, and many firms have gone out of business. if someone has placed themselves in a position to make money legally, and can survive while not being unethical, then more power to them

if the author was really trying to say that glen was being sneaky and underhanded in some way, then I stand corrected in my interpretation


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Jul 1, 2012)

Clark said:


> Thanks.
> Our household didn't know what triffids were either.
> The two of us are in the mid 40s.



That makes_ me _feel better... :wink:


----------



## Ruth (Jul 1, 2012)

> Tribbles are not endangered so the CITES inspectors would not look at them.


The was a Startrek episode that had tribbles, but I don't know about a triffid


----------



## NYEric (Jul 2, 2012)

I cant believe you people never saw the movies about Triffids! Worse invasion Brittain ever had! Imagine carnivorous plants that use their roots to drag themselves around!!!

Oh! BTW, plant inspectors can't tell endangered species either!


----------



## JeanLux (Jul 3, 2012)

Gcroz said:


> I finished reading _The Scent of Scandal_ which is a book about the _kovachii_ discovery and resulting legal battle. I highly recommend this book, although I'm sure some members may take issues with some of the contents.
> 
> ....
> 
> Many of you have stated that you believe that you do not tolerate "cheats and liars." However, given the chance to have a plant like PK named after you, wouldn't you take the chance? Is it really so bad what Kovach did?



I finally finished the book too! And you are right: recommendable!!!! I like the way it is structured and written a lot!!! 

But, even if I understand Kovach's actings I am not sure I would act so naively anymore !!!(?) 

Concerning the work overhead created by the event ....!??? Not justified IMHO !!! 

Jean

PS: and of course I am proud to be am member of this ST forum, that has been referenced to several times!!!!


----------



## Gcroz (Jul 3, 2012)

JeanLux said:


> I finally finished the book too! And you are right: recommendable!!!! I like the way it is structured and written a lot!!!
> 
> But, even if I understand Kovach's actings I am not sure I would act so naively anymore !!!(?)
> 
> ...



Glad you enjoyed it! i know I did and I agree, I liked how it was structured. 

As to the second part of my quote which you added, I asked those questions as talking points and as a "Devil's Advocate." I have stated before here that I would be hard pressed under the circumstances to resist doing what Kovach did. Having seen the fallout from his decision, I would be able to say I probably would not have gone and done it. But i also know, after a 30 year love affair with orchids, that these plants have a remarkable capacity to make otherwise sane and rational people act contrary to those traits.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Jul 3, 2012)

I just finished reading this book as well. I enjoyed it, though I found myself shaking my head frequently at some of the actions of both people and government organizations...


----------



## chrismende (Jul 3, 2012)

Ok, now I have to get the book. I read lots of excerpts on Amazon already!


----------



## tomkalina (Oct 27, 2012)

Not sure if this is old news, but I just learned yesterday that Mike Kovach passed away in August. Young guy - only 57......


----------



## Paul Mc (Oct 27, 2012)

WOW, that makes me sad!!! I just read the book a few months ago....


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh my, Tom! I had not heard that. How sad.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 28, 2012)

I had not heard either. First Isaias, then Mike!?


----------



## Ditto (Oct 28, 2012)

I think this press release relates to Mr Kovach

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2012/092012/09022012/723030

Uri


----------



## Paul Mc (Oct 28, 2012)

Thank you for the link! I'll read it now!


----------



## Gcroz (Oct 28, 2012)

Sad news when one so young passes away. Thank you for posting the link.


----------



## quietaustralian (Dec 11, 2012)

I read this book recently and thought it was quite well written. The author fleshed out the story and the people involved, filling in the gaps of what I knew of this saga. I enjoy history, Orchid history in particular. Although recent history, I'm sure this will become a classic in the genre of Orchid history. 

I have no complaints but found the "Notes on Sources" a little strange in format and was wondering if I had lost touch with Australian culture due to the following quote regarding Meg Lowman " But she repeatedly failed in her efforts to reconcile her scientific pursuits *with the Aussie ideal of a subservient wife*"' Maybe someone was using a little poetic licence.

Regards, Mick


----------



## NYEric (Dec 11, 2012)

Aussie wives are subservient!? Wait, let me get rid of my girl!! :evil:


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 11, 2012)

NYEric said:


> Aussie wives are subservient!? Wait, let me get rid of my girl!! :evil:


I'm sure she'd love to hear you say that....oke:


----------



## NYEric (Dec 12, 2012)

_"The Devil made me do it!" _- Flip (Geraldine) Wilson.


----------

