# Excerpt from Dr. Eric Christenson



## SlipperFan (Dec 19, 2008)

Posted here with his permission:

It is easy to glaze over the name changes by Chase, Williams. et al. in the December issue of Orchids/Lindleyana. Given our interest in conservation, however, one of the new names (nom. nov.) is worth noticing:

Oncidium manuelariasii Chase & N. H. Wms. (p. 25)

Manuel Arias is, of course, a wanted felon in the United States for his involvement in the commercial smuggling of Phragmipedium (CITES Appendix I). While awaiting sentencing he bribed someone at the Peruvian Consulate, obtained a duplicate passport, and skipped the country. His partner, George Norris, spent 18 months in Federal Prison in Texas for his part. But here he is being honored by Chase et al. in the pages of the American Orchid Society flagship publication.

The Florida State Museum (FLAS - Williams & Whitten) has already shown their solidarity with orchid smugglers most notably with the renaming of Stellilabium peruvianum to Telipogon selbyanus, named for the only botanical garden ever indicted for orchid smuggling. A direct insult to Peru and a bid of solidarity with the smugglers at the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens.

The American Orchid Society, of course unconditionally supports orchid smuggling. It is hardly surprising that they celebrate orchid smugglers.

I am, however, surprised that Mark Chase would have such contempt for decency. More to the point, I am astonished that RBG Kew would tolerate his linking the institution to a wanted fugitive. I really had thought that Kew's garbage with Cribb that led to Orchid Fever was now in the past. Apparently not. So now everything done by Kew must again be suspect.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 19, 2008)

Wow; I wonder if that includes the transfer of natural products from their place of origin to be cultivated in foreign lands to control the trade? British self-excusing snobbery finally hits upon the truth. "You are not better than us."


----------



## aquacorps (Dec 19, 2008)

Another reason for not being a member of the AOS.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 19, 2008)

Well, its not without precedent...Paph henryanum is named after Henry Azadehdel, a convicted paph smuggler....But the ironic thing is...the smuggled paphs that Arias and George Norris brought in were all propagated Phrags that would have been perfectly legal....if they hadn't been intentionally labeled "Maxillaria".................................Take care, Eric


----------



## orchidmaven (Dec 20, 2008)

It reminds me of the movie Casa Blanca where the gendarme says, ' I am shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in Ricks Place!

Everyone needs to read, "Fredrick Sander: The Orchid King" by, Arthur Swinson

Some of the plants we grow in our greenhouses are plants for which some Murdered, theft being a good outcome.
Plant genocide was conducted for the sake of being the first to introduce or gain the profit from the introduction of a single plant!
Whole cargo holds were purposely destroyed by rival collectors.

None of us should take delight in Manuel Arias misfortune! Especially Dr. Christenson who himself has been in many a greenhouse were plants he handled and studied were less than pure!


Theresa.
Hillsview


----------



## Hien (Dec 20, 2008)

My sentiment is aggreeing with Eric M. & Theresa.
All are entittled to their sentiments about what methods are best in conservation. However we can all detect a single minded rigid sentiment from Dr. Christenson that can not be cooled (I have to say though, that I am not sure what would I do, how would I feel & act if I am in his situation).
We are all human with our blindness & weakness (myself not excluded) so of course, we tend to view peoples who do not take our view regarding our enemy as our future to be enemies as well. 
Here is the truth that every conservationist noble soul chose to ignore out of convenience.
-All orchids, species & hybrids that now exist (on your own window sill, private green house, to the benches at Home Depots) have a family tree that could be traced back to the jungles.
-rain forests are cleared, thousand of acres a day without a single protestation by orchid conservateurs (have any of you look at the images from the sky of south american countries like Brazil etc.. lately, gigantic patches of brown where forests are cleared to grow soybeans, to harvest wood for China).
-legalled or not, flasking have produced millions of orchids. One or two deemed illegalled can still generate thousands & thousands of plants.
- a few bull dozers can make thousands & thousands of orchids disappear in a blink of an eye which scientists like Dr. Christenson never ever will study & describe (if you don't describe them, they do not exist).

Here is a sample

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...eforestation&start=80&ndsp=20&um=1&hl=en&sa=N


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 21, 2008)

Hien said:


> My sentiment is aggreeing with Eric M. & Theresa.
> All are entittled to their sentiments about what methods are best in conservation. However we can all detect a single minded rigid sentiment from Dr. Christenson that can not be cooled (I have to say though, that I am not sure what would I do, how would I feel & act if I am in his situation).
> We are all human with our blindness & weakness (myself not excluded) so of course, we tend to view peoples who do not take our view regarding our enemy as our future to be enemies as well.
> Here is the truth that every conservationist noble soul chose to ignore out of convenience.
> ...



I’m entirely agreeing with you Hien…


----------



## paphreek (Dec 21, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> Posted here with his permission:
> 
> The American Orchid Society, of course unconditionally supports orchid smuggling. It is hardly surprising that they celebrate orchid smugglers.



I would have to take issue with this statement, at least when it comes to judging rules. I bloomed a Paph Ho Chi Min that I had purchased from another Slippertalk member a couple years ago. It was pulled for judging, but not judged when I could not produce paperwork to prove that the vietnamense used was legal. It may have come from a legal flask of Ho Chi Mins produced by Antec, but being the second or third owner of the plant, I did not have the original receipt. This policy demonstrates that the AOS does not support unconditional orchid smuggling, but instead supports the extreme position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concerning seedlings produced from illegally obtained plants. While I personally don't support this policy, I understand the reasoning of the AOS and continue to remain a member.


----------



## slippertalker (Dec 21, 2008)

By the way, the AOS will now accept all Paph Vietnamense and their hybrids without back up paperwork. Included are such hybrids as Paph Ho Chi Minh.
At this point the "legal" and "illegal" plants are impossible to differentiate and F2 strains have been created.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 21, 2008)

paphreek said:


> I would have to take issue with this statement, at least when it comes to judging rules. I bloomed a Paph Ho Chi Min that I had purchased from another Slippertalk member a couple years ago. It was pulled for judging, but not judged when I could not produce paperwork to prove that the vietnamense used was legal. It may have come from a legal flask of Ho Chi Mins produced by Antec, but being the second or third owner of the plant, I did not have the original receipt. This policy demonstrates that the AOS does not support unconditional orchid smuggling, but instead supports the extreme position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife concerning seedlings produced from illegally obtained plants. While I personally don't support this policy, I understand the reasoning of the AOS and continue to remain a member.



So what you are saying is the AOS conditionally supports smuggling rather than unconditionally?


----------



## biothanasis (Dec 21, 2008)

Well, I think I am with Hien...!


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 21, 2008)

orchidmaven said:


> None of us should take delight in Manuel Arias misfortune! Especially Dr. Christenson who himself has been in many a greenhouse were plants he handled and studied were less than pure!


I don't quite understand why Manuel Arias is considered unfortunate. He escaped this country without being put in jail. He got off scott-free and is now making a bundle from us in the States selling kovachii and it's hybrids.

Perhaps Dr. Christenson has "been in many a greenhouse..." but I don't see that in the same light as the problems he has pointed out in his statement.


----------



## Scooby5757 (Dec 21, 2008)

So I had to pull out my issue of Orchids. Took me a minute to find what we were talking about. I was expecting a photo of Manuel Arias holding some plant and smiling, with a honorarium type page about this naming, none was found. (I did end up googling him, just to see a picture of who this is all about.)

Instead, listed amongst all of the oncidums listed (about 140), with no extra emphasis, is listed the name and small discription _Oncidium manuelariasii_.

Now it says here that it was changed by Chase and Williams, who seem to be associatied with Kew, from the previous name of _Odontoglossum ariasii _named by Dalstrom, who is associated with Selby. It seems the plant was already named after him.

Now I've heard loads of stories about Selby and kovachii, even from Dalstrom at the WOC. Ive also heard stories about Manuel Arias before. Now while I don't agree that this man deserves something "nice" done to honor him, can someone please explain to me how the AOS is responsible? Just for printing this? I would be super-pissed if they started not including cultural or taxonomic information because a "panel of experts" or "orchid big brother" have deemed it unsuitable for print. The Lindleyana section, while tedious and often a really boring read, is scientific/taxonomic information, and this is the information I do not want diluted or filtered.

So, if it is not the printing of the information, which it seems is not the real issue, <do you really shoot the messenger?> I'm left with a few questions.

1. Is there some sort of secret alliance that Im not aware of that ties the AOS back to Manuel Arias or even the choosing of the name(s) of this plant? 

2. There is something almost nasty in the way he jabs at the AOS. People get nasty when something gets personal. What's gone down between the AOS and Eric Christenson?

3. Is there some other piece of the puzzle that we're not getting here that makes what Dr. Christenson said make more sense?


----------



## orchidmaven (Dec 21, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> I don't quite understand why Manuel Arias is considered unfortunate. He escaped this country without being put in jail. He got off scott-free and is now making a bundle from us in the States selling kovachii and it's hybrids.
> 
> Perhaps Dr. Christenson has "been in many a greenhouse..." but I don't see that in the same light as the problems he has pointed out in his statement.



Perhaps this article may explain some issues.
http://www.greenzoo.net/trouble.htm

Theresa.


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 21, 2008)

the article explains some why he doesn't like selby, but doesn't really explain why he might be mad at the aos. this orchid seems to have made a lot of people mad at each other, and probably mad in general...


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 21, 2008)

orchidmaven said:


> Perhaps this article may explain some issues.
> http://www.greenzoo.net/trouble.htm
> 
> Theresa.


Theresa, I knew all that. The key is that what Dr. Eric did, or was attempting to do, was legal. As the article said, he was using detailed photos sent to him by friends in Peru. What Arias did was not legal.


----------



## orchidmaven (Dec 22, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> Theresa, I knew all that. The key is that what Dr. Eric did, or was attempting to do, was legal. As the article said, he was using detailed photos sent to him by friends in Peru. What Arias did was not legal.



I am not pleased with anyone getting away with playing fast and loose with the law. Especially fleeing justice. I just have a hard time with the tone of the remarks.

Life is not fair. I wish it were.

Theresa.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 22, 2008)

AS I previously stated Christiensen is suffering from pompous @$$ syndrome. If he had published his article on Pk the plants still would not have been legally obtained. The Royal Gardens were built on plants seized by subjegating and colonizing established nations. At least Kovach didn't kill any natives to get his piece of the action. Just my opinion.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 22, 2008)

I have to agree with NYEric. People with the biggest egos boohoo the loudest.


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 22, 2008)

NYEric said:


> AS I previously stated Christiensen is suffering from pompous @$$ syndrome. If he had published his article on Pk the plants still would not have been legally obtained. The Royal Gardens were built on plants seized by subjegating and colonizing established nations. At least Kovach didn't kill any natives to get his piece of the action. Just my opinion.


You are wrong, Eric. Dr. Christenson was in no way involved with Pk illegally obtained. 

And now we are judging the messenger by the "tone" of his message, not the content.

There are some incorrect statements in the article Theresa pointed us to. For one thing, Kovach took the plant he first saw at the roadside stand and brought it to Selby. He did not go back a year later for it, as stated in the article.

Another thing: Christenson's description of P. peruvianum preceeded Selby's. However, Selby rushed their publication of Selbyana before the AOS magazine came out.

Know your facts, folks. Best not to judge unless you have all the facts.


----------



## Scooby5757 (Dec 22, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> And now we are judging the messenger by the "tone" of his message, not the content.



Well..._yeah_...and _no_. <My mother's catch-all phrase was. "It's not what you say, but the way you say it."> No one has answered any of the questions in my previous post, but the tone in his statement is harsh and accusitory. And you know what, it should be if what he said was true. But is it? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't understand how Selby rushing the publication of Selbyana in order to beat the AOS publication equates to the comment of the AOS being supporters of orchid smuggling? 

Again I'm left with a lack of connection is his line of thinking. This brings me back to my previous three questions....<see above post>

I'll state I respect Dr. Christenson. I love orchids and so does he. I wouldn't be a true orchid lover if I didn't recognize the good and the time he devotes for ALL of the plants we love so that we understand them better. That said, something is just fishy here, it just reeks of it....


----------



## Hien (Dec 22, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> You are wrong, Eric. Dr. Christenson was in no way involved with Pk illegally obtained.
> 
> And now we are judging the messenger by the "tone" of his message, not the content.
> 
> ...


 Dot, now I am really confused.
Selby rushed the publication to beat AOS magazine ( I assume AOS is the magazine that printed Dr. Christenson' description, is it not) then why does DR. Christenson got all upset with the one who supported him & printed his article? as per this statement:
"The American Orchid Society, of course unconditionally supports orchid smuggling. It is hardly surprising that they celebrate orchid smugglers"
Personally, I am a softy, I really feel bad for Mr. Norris & Mr. Kovach, I heard their lives are in ruins. Many many worse things happens all over the world, many drug traffickers who ruin societies, destroy families & lives got away, this is just one plant he brought back to have it named after him (goodness, gracious, what a cost to have an orchid named after yourself), he did not even keep the plant.
Is it true that one of the wife was so mad, she burned down the greenhouse when the husband was in jail?


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm still in touch with George Norris. he's out of the orchid biz entirely, needless to say. He's selling handmade pens now....basically enjoying his freedom, and still cantankerous. fortunately, his life is not in ruins, and his wife stood by him and supported him all through his incarceration. Don't know about Kovach, though.....Take care, Eric


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 22, 2008)

I think everyone should go back and re-read Eric Christenson's letter. You are making connection where there are none.

Eric is displeased with Kew for accepting the name changes of two orchids, one after a convicted felon fugitive and the other after an institution that was convicted of breaking international law. The AOS is complicit by publishing the Onc's new name in Lindleyana (p. 25) of Orchids, Dec. 2008.

Other than that, you'll have to talk with Eric. I suspect he has more inside knowledge of all the named institutions than any of us here have.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 23, 2008)

My point was, why is he displeased? The foundations of Kew and many other institutions, Kennedy family dynasty, Rockefellor money, white South African power, USA, etc. are built on illegal an immoral abuses of power. Is he 'innocent' or naive enough to not have seen this previously in his previously squeaky clean RHS/Kew? I don't think so.


----------



## tenman (Dec 28, 2008)

*Relativity*

I have read this thread with interest, amusement, and annoyance in varying degrees.

I have several problems with the issue in general, the first and foremost being, as one poster particualrly effectively illustrated with the link to the information on deforestation: ex-situ conservation may, in the end, be the ONLY way to preserve many, if not all, orchid species. Like it or not. Approve or not. A dead orchid buried under a highway or whatever won't care what you think. Smuggling Jews out of Nazi Germany was illegal, too. Right, but illegal. 

Another couple of issues I have are with the Kovach saga (good name for a tv miniseries, no?) Michael bought the plant from a farmer's roadside stand, _already potted up._ Yes it is true that a year later there were no plants left in that specific area. WHY? Because they had been _farmed over!_

Second one with the Kovach saga is that I don't _want_ taxonomists (or AOS judges, for that matter) to be policemen. A plant was brought. They described it. It's what they're supposed to do. I dont want their work dependent on the whims and political agenda of whatever regime is in power in whichever locale they happen to be working in. Period. We'll end up with no new plants being described at all until they're recieved from police property rooms - dead. Side issue: I don't trust the police - jack-booted self-important thugs most of them in my area. 

Another issue I have, related to the above, is the LAW. It isn't my god. I don't think it's a good idea for the law to be above examination. The laws in this case, I feel, are mostly wrong. Cites is wrong as it applies to orchids and was never meant to apply plants in the first place. To make it illegal to remove _any part_ of a tiger makes sense as you'd have to kill it to get the part, but in orchids only guarantees people will rip the plants out of their natural habitat and sell them to those who cannot get them any other way, which they could if removing seedpods and pollen was permitted. And for those of you who want to jump in about the law being so important (and I do agree that it is and should be important - but not above my conscience) - at what size polity does the law become sacred? Was the law of Hitler's Germany equally sacred? How about Pol Pot's law? Mugabe's? I could go on with less egregious examples. What about a room of ten people who decide to pass their own laws in the room and then execute one of their number who break the law. Is that legal? Legitimate? Don't say I'm being ridiculous - I'm only giving examples to pinpoint the weaknesses in the reverential treatment of the law without examination. Why are the laws of the 'room of ten' not legitimate? At what size do they become so? Is it a matter of acreage? How about Monaco? Should their laws be less sacred than those of a country of 100 millon suqre miles? Or is it population? Are only the laws of groups of more than 40 million sacred? 10 million? 3 thouand? Pick a number, any number. What about the laws of a dictator or a king? Are the laws of a democracy more sacred than those of an ariostocracy? How about the laws against medical marijuana usage in the US? In fact I personally believe ALL the drug laws in the US are patentley inconstitutional on the face of them. And I don't use them. I just think it's wrong to claim to be a free country and then be in fact much closer to totalitarian.

Law, schmaw! We each will for the most part behave according to our own consciences. 

It's easy to hide behind absolute concepts such as 'the law' but the reality is that life isn't that way and you have to make choices. Recognizing that and that you are in fact choosing to to decide something is wrong r right is more productive. And healthier. For all.

And BTW, Kew's collections are largely filled with smuggled plants - and not just in the distant past, either. Henryu Azadehdel suppplied a lot of them until Kew decided to turn against him. Read the literature. It's all there. Personally, I doubt any of the major player's hands are completely clean.


----------



## goldenrose (Dec 29, 2008)

Interesting points tenman!


----------



## likespaphs (Dec 29, 2008)

dang... you do make good points.
right on!


----------

