# Paphiopedilum josianae Braem & Nimpoosri 2014



## quietaustralian (Jun 9, 2014)

I had a quick look around to see if anyone had posted this and didn't find anything. 

Paphiopedilum josianae Braem & Nimpoosri 2014

Paphiopedilum concolor var longipetalum elevated to species level and described as Paphiopedilum josianae Braem & Nimpoosri 2014

http://www.richardiana.com/pdfRich/Richardiana-vol14-20-Paphiopedilum.pdf

Regards, Mick


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 9, 2014)

Interesting Mick. Thanks for bring this to light.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 9, 2014)

Thanks for the link. I knew it had happened, but couldn't provide proof.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jun 9, 2014)

Interesting. I thought it was a glaring omission in Braem's recent book that he dismissed all varieties of Paph. concolor except the album without even mentioning them, saying numerous varieties had been described but none of the subspecies or varieties differs sufficiently from the nominal form to warrant autonomous status. Better late than never I guess, but it makes me wonder what else was left out of the book just to make a bigger impression with separate publication later, and spur sales of a revised edition in a few years.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 9, 2014)

Finally, thanks for sharing. Now if only we can get some of these here.


----------



## mormodes (Jun 9, 2014)

Where's the latin description? Doesn't it need one for valid publication of a name?


----------



## Erythrone (Jun 9, 2014)

mormodes said:


> Where's the latin description? Doesn't it need one for valid publication of a name?



I don't think they need latin description anymore

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lly-ditch-latin-and-paper-enter-21st-century/


----------



## mormodes (Jun 9, 2014)

PaphMadMan said:


> Interesting. I thought it was a glaring omission in Braem's recent book that he dismissed all varieties of Paph. concolor except the album without even mentioning them, saying numerous varieties had been described but none of the subspecies or varieties differs sufficiently from the nominal form to warrant autonomous status. Better late than never I guess, but it makes me wonder what else was left out of the book just to make a bigger impression with separate publication later, and spur sales of a revised edition in a few years.



Jeeze this nomenclature stuff is so weird.


----------



## mormodes (Jun 9, 2014)

Erythrone said:


> I don't think they need latin description anymore
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lly-ditch-latin-and-paper-enter-21st-century/



Ah! Thanks!


----------



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Jun 10, 2014)

mormodes said:


> Where's the latin description? Doesn't it need one for valid publication of a name?



In my opinion Dr. Braem didn't need to write a latin description because he wasn't describing a new taxon. He was elevating an existing taxon to the species level and gave it a new name. Hence the latin addition "stat. et nomen nov." after the name. And as required he mentioned the basionym for the new name.

My two cents.


----------

