# Taxonomy nonsenses or change the wrong rules



## dodidoki (Aug 12, 2011)

I know someone's answer: "first description".But there are few names roaring for changing. Eg.: papuanum causes many confusions with violascens, markianum was described first but tigrinum was published some week earlier (however tigrinum more characteristic name), many plants are listed as spec however they are only varieties, but most nonsense name is micranthum....plant with tiny flower.....Are there any possibility to take this absurdities into their right place????


----------



## cnycharles (Aug 12, 2011)

I think if people sniffed and looked at the flowers more, and less at worries about how things get named or if a name is silly for some reason or other, then there would be a lot less looting and pillaging in england and the middle east right now  (just an attempt at some very light humor and poking fun at the craziness present in the world right now, no personal offense intended!)


----------



## Braem (Aug 12, 2011)

dodidoki said:


> I know someone's answer: "first description".But there are few names roaring for changing. Eg.: papuanum causes many confusions with violascens, markianum was described first but tigrinum was published some week earlier (however tigrinum more characteristic name), many plants are listed as spec however they are only varieties, but most nonsense name is micranthum....plant with tiny flower.....Are there any possibility to take this absurdities into their right place????


The problem is ... these rules are there. And the rule of priority is one of the foremost (although also very "problematic" (for example was tigrinum really published before markianum ... very few if any do know the real story on that). But whatever ... but we have the rule, and just because someone does not like a name that has priority, the rule does not have to be bad. The story of P. kovachii is a good example for this .... Is the fact that the plant was smuggled enough to invalidate its name? (Something that according to the valid Code is not possible) Do I have to ask the person who brings me a new species from where he got the plant. If so, a lot of species will have to be renamed. The problem is that the rules are made by the botanists that are members of the International Association of Plant Taxonomists ... and they are a mixture of all kinds of nationalities etc ... and some on sensible, some are not .... And some rules allow for very extensive interpretation. But what do you want to do ... chuck all the rules out, and let anyone name anything whatever he/she wants? 

Only specialists have an insight of what happens behind the scenes, and I would have to write an entire book to cover 25% of the problems there are with the Code (as we call it). We have had some good examples on this forum about what happens when one single fool starts giving each and every plant a so-called "varietal" name. As I have said before, taxonomy should be left to taxonomists, and baking bread should be left to the bakers. 

Back to the rule of priority. You have two options: either do away with that rule (and that will never happen), but if it would happen there will be constant battle about the valid name. The alternative is to stick with it, and to live with the fact that from time to time some mistake (eg. violascens, zieckianum, papuanum) will be discovered and will have to be corrected.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 12, 2011)

Good explanation. Thanks.


----------



## Shiva (Aug 12, 2011)

Braem said:


> Only specialists have an insight of what happens behind the scenes, and I would have to write an entire book to cover 25% of the problems there are with the Code (as we call it). We have had some good examples on this forum about what happens when one single fool starts giving each and every plant a so-called "varietal" name. As I have said before, taxonomy should be left to taxonomists, and baking bread should be left to the bakers.





:clap:


----------



## dodidoki (Aug 13, 2011)

Okay, I understood, but in that case anyone who find a new specie can give any name of new plant. Extremely e.g. a white flower can get a name paph. "veryblackflower", because he is the first publisher. Just think about "micranthum". It is nonsense.


----------



## Braem (Aug 13, 2011)

dodidoki said:


> Okay, I understood, but in that case anyone who find a new specie can give any name of new plant. Extremely e.g. a white flower can get a name paph. "veryblackflower", because he is the first publisher. Just think about "micranthum". It is nonsense.


Yes, you got it! ... That is one of the (many) problems ... say you find a new paph with blue flowers and pink polka-dots ... we can name if "nigrens" or whatever ... and claim it is because you saw a black hair on the staminode ... even if later you say:" oh, I goofed ... there is no black hair" ... (and assuming your publication was valid and effective according to the Code) ... the name you gave the plant stays as is ... for ever and ever . ... and yes, your example is a good one ... and the reason was that Tang & Wang didn't have a clue of what they were describing ... and weren't capable of recohnising a bud from a full-grown flower. Also "armeniacum" means "apricot" ... did you ever see an "apricot-colored" armeniacum? There are many examples .... Of course, if you would do that, everyone would know that you haven't got a clue but the name remains ...


----------



## Heather (Aug 13, 2011)

Great examples - I think most of us dislike that kovachii is named after the jerk who smuggled it into the US but it is what it is. Appreciate the flower, not the name, I guess!


----------



## Braem (Aug 14, 2011)

Heather said:


> Great examples - I think most of us dislike that kovachii is named after the jerk who smuggled it into the US but it is what it is. Appreciate the flower, not the name, I guess!


Maybe ... I don't know the "gent". However, in this "game" one should not judge too quickly. Most new plants since 1984 have been "smuggled" in one way or another. And Kew for example, had the CITES office right at Kew, and you are certainly not going to tell me that these people would ever have denied Cribb a CITES, whereas anyone else is called a criminal. Of course Cribb never had any "illegal" orchids. 

For NONE of the species I have described, I ever asked for evidence of provenance. I am a botanist and my job is to describe ... not to ask where the lad who brought me the stuff got it from. 
If you find a new species what can you do .. you can apply for a CITES ... but with what name? The plant does not have a name ... etc. etc. 
I know that Kovach purchased the plant ... but let's be honest ... would anyone of you have resisted if you would have seen that chance ???
The sad thing is what happened therefafter ... but to blame is CITES and stupid authorities. Part of the (rotten) deal with Selby was that they make a proposal to revoke the name ... but ... obviously none of them knew what they were doing, because there are no provisions in the CODE that allow for that. The story goes on ... but more maybe later


----------



## quietaustralian (Aug 14, 2011)

Braem said:


> The problem is ... these rules are there. And the rule of priority is one of the foremost (although also very "problematic" (for example was tigrinum really published before markianum ... very few if any do know the real story on that). But whatever ... but we have the rule, and just because someone does not like a name that has priority, the rule does not have to be bad. The story of P. kovachii is a good example for this .... Is the fact that the plant was smuggled enough to invalidate its name? (Something that according to the valid Code is not possible) Do I have to ask the person who brings me a new species from where he got the plant. If so, a lot of species will have to be renamed. The problem is that the rules are made by the botanists that are members of the International Association of Plant Taxonomists ... and they are a mixture of all kinds of nationalities etc ... and some on sensible, some are not .... And some rules allow for very extensive interpretation. But what do you want to do ... chuck all the rules out, and let anyone name anything whatever he/she wants?
> 
> Only specialists have an insight of what happens behind the scenes, and I would have to write an entire book to cover 25% of the problems there are with the Code (as we call it). We have had some good examples on this forum about what happens when one single fool starts giving each and every plant a so-called "varietal" name. As I have said before, taxonomy should be left to taxonomists, and baking bread should be left to the bakers.
> 
> Back to the rule of priority. You have two options: either do away with that rule (and that will never happen), but if it would happen there will be constant battle about the valid name. The alternative is to stick with it, and to live with the fact that from time to time some mistake (eg. violascens, zieckianum, papuanum) will be discovered and will have to be corrected.



I recall reading the following passage in Koopowitz's latest book Tropical Slipper Orchids, is that the correct story of the naming of tigrinum/markianum?





Regards, Mick


----------



## Kavanaru (Aug 14, 2011)

Braem said:


> As I have said before, taxonomy should be left to taxonomists, and baking bread should be left to the bakers.


 true as life... :clap:


----------



## NYEric (Aug 14, 2011)

I would guess that 2/3 of all plants named were smuggled at some point.  The problem with plants like papuanum and violascens is that there are lumpers and splitters and we can chose to be either on a whim. When it is more convenient I'm a lumper but other times, usually when I see a new variety to buy :sob:, I'm a splitter. I think we must let the taxologists do their thing and utilize their work or ignore it as we find fitting.


----------



## Braem (Aug 14, 2011)

OK, let my try to make the problem markianum/tigrinum clear, so that each and everyone can me up his/her opinion for him/herself.

Please note that this information is first hand. Nothing hear say.

1. Act: The plant was described as Paph. markianum by Fowlie and to be published in OD. In fact OD was ready and PRINTED but not delivered when all of the sudden Jack got the information that Koopowitz & Cribb also had a MS in the tube. 

2. Act: Jack tore the pertinant pages out of a copy of the OD and sent them by FAX to Harvard and to at least one institute in Europe. There is a confirmation from Harvard (Gustavo Romero), and as I was the adressee at the European institute (The Schlechter Institute), I confirmed reception as well.

3. Act: Two weeks LATER (if I remember right), the article of Cribb and Koopowitz was published with the name P. tigrinum. The date is also established and there is no argument about this.

Now to the controvery: Cribb & Koopowitz claim that P. markianum was not effectively published, because the material was sent by FAX. Fowlie called me, and asked me to make a independent ruling on this. So I took the CODE and read the pertinent article. And there it was, written in plain English: "... publication ... is done by DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATERIALS." Now is sending pages of printing materials through a fax machine publication inaccordance with the CODE ... and my answer had to be YES. Jack took a printed paper, and put it into a FAX machine, on the othere side, the fax machines at Harvard in Europe put out a printed copy. 

There was no other controversy. And in those days, there was no mention of any other requirements. The article you quote is typically biased. The Schlechter Institute was partly run out of my home (there also was an office in Siegen, and one in Wissmar) ... so what ... If I build cars in my garage it is a production site ... even if it is in my own house. The Schlechter Institute (now directed by Hartmut Mohr) was NOT my brainchild. It was the brainchild of eight botanist that were not at that time employed in an academic position (Hartmut Mohr owns a pharmacy, two othere were medial doctors etc.). It was also argued that The Schechter Institute (by the way, a recognized Institue by the German Government) was privately funded (which ist was, and is). Bo so is Kew, Selby, and many others ... And even is they discreted the Schlechter Insitute (I never understood why?), what do they do with Harvard? When Koopowitz says that the claim Jack sent a fax with the article to Harvard is "rubbish", I don't quite know how he argues Gustavo's confirmation away.

The claim Jack accepted Harold to have published first, simply is NOT true. If it were true, why would he have asked me to look into the matter etc.

Fact is that Koopowitz in those days changed his method of argument ... first the argument was "sending a fax" does not constitute "distribution of printed matter". And as soon as he realized that such argement is nonsense (the thing about "electronic transmission" was not in the Code valid at that time), he changed to "The Schlechter Institute is not an academic institution". 

The joke is, that even if Koopowitz's arguments about the Schlechter Institute" would have been true, it didn't matter ... because the CODE did not stipulate that as a requirement. It just required that the material must be made "available to the public". And it was available through Harvard and it was available through the Schlechter Institute.

Now do I care? ... not really ... It is not my publication, and I don't give a cold ... whether anyone uses "markianum" or "tigrinum" ... all what I do is look at the rules. And according to the rules P. markianum was published validly before the publication of P. tigrinum. 

Furthermore, the statement that I am the only one who considers "markianum" the correct name is also untrue ... And I never made any fuss about this. The fuss was (and still is) on Koopowitz's side ... because everytime I gave a lecture, I was challanged, and I had no choice as to explain the situation.

As I said ... what the hell ... I think P. tigrinum is an appropriate name for the species, but I maintain (and I always will) that P. markianum has priority. I only wish Harold would stick to the truth, but then, I guess he would get in trouble with Cribb. .....


----------



## Braem (Aug 14, 2011)

NYEric said:


> I would guess that 2/3 of all plants named were smuggled at some point.  The problem with plants like papuanum and violascens is that there are lumpers and splitters and we can chose to be either on a whim. When it is more convenient I'm a lumper but other times, usually when I see a new variety to buy :sob:, I'm a splitter. I think we must let the taxologists do their thing and utilize their work or ignore it as we find fitting.


Well yes, but that is another problem. As long as there are no "generally accepted criteria" to delineate the taxa ... you will not solve this problem. And ALL learned botanists agree on one thing: there is NO definition of what a PLANT SPECIES is that works.


----------



## Marc (Aug 14, 2011)

Interesting to read the tigrinum / markianum story from a different point of view then the one descibed in the Paphiopedilum book by Koopowitz.

Thanks for your side of the story.


----------



## Braem (Aug 14, 2011)

It is sad that Harold wrote these unprofessional lines in a book ... and it is counterproductive ... as I will be asked over and over again what the story is ... and everywhere where I explain the situation ... many people move to the "markianum" side. But again, I can live with "tigrinum" just as I can live with callosum, well knowing that the correct name for the first is "markianum" and for the second is "crossii".


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 14, 2011)

I think it is amazing that people have to go to such lengths to fight to name a plant.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 14, 2011)

Speaking of rules of priority, Guido, you argued that Paph. crossianum (I think that's what it was) should be the valid name for what we know as P. callosum. Needless to say, any further paph literature still refers to that paph as callosum. I am assuming that you still abide by that concept... but how do you get a consensus of the "powers that be" to go along with what appears to be such a radical revision? As I recall, I believe your argument was that crossianum was an appropriate species ID for a plant misidentified on the genus level....(Phrag vs paph or cyp vs paph, but I'm not at home and nowhere near the literature, so this is based on vague memories...) How do the rules of priority apply when dealing with a mis-identification on the genus level? I realize that all slippers were at one point regarded as cyps, so I guess these get "grandfathered" in.


----------



## Marc (Aug 15, 2011)

I think your referring to crossii, Crossianum is the primary hybrid of insigne and venustum.


----------



## quietaustralian (Aug 15, 2011)

Braem said:


> OK, let my try to make the problem markianum/tigrinum clear, so that each and everyone can me up his/her opinion for him/herself.
> 
> Please note that this information is first hand. Nothing hear say.
> 
> ...



If your account is accurate, unprofessional is an understatement. Some could say untruthful or even slanderous.

Regards, Mick


----------



## Braem (Aug 15, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> If your account is accurate, unprofessional is an understatement. Some could say untruthful or even slanderous.
> 
> Regards, Mick


Yes .. and I have never found out why they are doing this. Jack asked me to interpret the rules. That is all I do .... It would be fine if Koopowitz (whom I asked to write a foreword for Braem & Chiron) would have just said: "OK, I don't agree with Braem". That is fine ... but for some reasons ... 
The same with Baruk and Hakone ... why are they after me? I never met them, I never had ANY dealing with them ... They are just out to start a fight. I have never met any of the two. Now Baruk is known to have pulled the same in France on Guy Chiron. Now, I have been told Hakone is a medical doctor working in Berlin ... I never met him .... I never had any dealings with him or Baruk. What is their problem? 

But I admit that this passage from Harold's book did hurt me ... and it is slanderous. Harold doesn't know what the story of the Schlechter Institute is .... and never asked me either ... so all it is, is "hear say" .... And with that, how can they expect to finish the case ... When I am asked I explain at conferences, I am forced to do so ... . And I don't go about asking where Harold got his plants from ... and whether he writes his articles in University or at home ... etc. etc.


----------



## Hakone (Aug 15, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> If your account is accurate, unprofessional is an understatement. Some could say untruthful or even slanderous.
> 
> Regards, Mick



I have read so many Paper/Publication in my life, for more than 1/2 of Paper is garbage.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 15, 2011)

Most interesting. 

From a parallel universe... When I was trained on the animal code circa 1998, there was mention of FAX as publication (I'd have to look it up to see if it was accepted or not). At that time, I don't think there was anything about digital publication (e-mailing a pdf etc) as that was just coming into fashion, but Christian Thompson at USNM said it was to be included in the next code. 

I recall an article on common usage too which would speak to the callosum/crossii issue if they were animals (although I do believe it exists in the plant code too). If a name is in "common usage" and "established" for an extended period, it may take priority over a previously published name, however, no means to get such a name integrated permanently was firmly in place. The name pretty much would require a champion to keep pushing to beat "real" priority. 

Even more complicated, we have the current codes, but I guess we'd have to look back to the code in use at time of publication to know for sure in these cases, right, Guido? So if FAX is now excluded in the current code, but not in the code when tig/mark were described, it's up to interpretation of whether FAX is publication if not specifically mentioned.


----------



## Braem (Aug 15, 2011)

Ernie said:


> Most interesting.
> 
> From a parallel universe... When I was trained on the animal code circa 1998, there was mention of FAX as publication (I'd have to look it up to see if it was accepted or not). At that time, I don't think there was anything about digital publication (e-mailing a pdf etc) as that was just coming into fashion, but Christian Thompson at USNM said it was to be included in the next code.
> 
> ...


You ar right that there is a difference between the animnal and plant code. And indeed at the time of markianum/tigrinum there was no mention of fax inhibition or no reference to digital publication. 

The crossii/callosum issue was published in an extensive article in SIDA by me and the late Dr. Senghas of Heidelberg University. 
Braem, G. J. & Senghas, K-H. (2000) - The intriguing case of Cypripedium crossii Morren, its priority over Cypripedium callosum Reichenbach fil. and its transfer to the genus Paphiopedilum Pfitzer – Sida, 19(2): 249-255.

There was and is is no provision for "common usage" or "established" in the ICBN. 

11.3. For any taxon from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, 57, or 59 apply. Thus the only article that is to be followed is:

11.3. For any taxon from family to genus inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority by conservation (see Art. 14) or where Art. 11.7, 15, 19.4, 56, 57, or 59 apply.

(and 14, 11.7, and the other exceptions listed do not apply)

the earliest legitimate name for "callosum" is "crossii" and as those names were published at the same level (species) crossii has priority. That case is as clear as water. 

The problem I have with the current code is that it includes man-made hybrids. I think that is wrong (and I believe to have heard Hooker fil. and Thiselton-Dyer turn around in their grave after thoes block-heads of the Botanical Committee did that. 

And yes, one has to take the valid code at the time of publication. You can't apply the 2010 Code to a publication prior to 2010.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 15, 2011)

Interesting. Thanks!


----------



## nikv (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm still trying to figure out the changes in genus Phragmipedium. I still can't keep it all straight in my head. But one thing is for certain, I will always think of a purpurata as a Laelia, not a Sophronitis or a Cattleya. But I'm not a taxonomist and I don't have to be correct.


----------



## Braem (Aug 15, 2011)

nikv said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the changes in genus Phragmipedium. I still can't keep it all straight in my head. But one thing is for certain, I will always think of a purpurata as a Laelia, not a Sophronitis or a Cattleya. But I'm not a taxonomist and I don't have to be correct.


What changes in the genus Phragmipedium? ... Actually I put kovachii in its own section named Schluckebieria (the maiden-name of my wife), and there have been some new species ... and if you refer to the caudatum group: its is very easy

1) caudatum = caudatum
2) lindenii = lindenii
3) exstaminodium = exstaminodium
4) warzewiczianum = what has hitherto been called "wallisii"
5) popowii = what has hitherto been called warzewiczianum 

I am just writing a new article (yes, out of my home ... well no, actually the house belongs to my wife ... so Koopowitz was wrong on that too) .. but I am not letting the cat out of the sack ... and I am not convinced of the validity of some of the species ... but that is for later. The article will be published in January (I think).

And by the way, I agree that Lalelia purpurata is "Laelia" ... putting Cattleya, laela, Sophronitis together was another nonsense of the molecular artists.

And who say that taxonomists ar not allowed to make mistakes. I was once asked in California whteher my Latin was good enough to write diagnosis for plants. I explaned that the Code calls for a Latin diagnosis, but nowhere does it say that the grammar of Latin has to be correct. (But don't worry, my diagnosises (is that the correct plural?) are checked by an expert in Latin.

The former Miss Schluckebier is calling me for sklave work in the kitchen, so I will refrain on looking for typos.


----------

