# Cypripedium malipoense?



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

I'm trying to figure out if there is a new species of Cypripedium or if it is just a synonym for Paphiopedilum malipoense.

http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.Articles/ynzwyj/ynzw2004/0404/040415.htm
That journal is from 2004.

Cypripedium malipoense S.C.Chen & Z.J.Liu
Paphiopedilium malipoense Chen & Tsi

Stephen?


----------



## gore42 (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, Paph malipoense was described in 1984 (Chen,Tsi), about 20 years before the journal appears to have been published, so my guess is that they weren't just late in getting the description out. I think it's a Cyp. 

- Matthew Gore


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

gore42 said:


> Well, Paph malipoense was described in 1984, about 20 years before the journal appears to have been published, so my guess is that they weren't just late in getting the description out. I think it's a Cyp.
> 
> - Matthew Gore


Right. That's what I was hoping for. Given the similarities of the taxonomists' names and the fact that it was on a website that may have had translation problems, I just wanted to double check with the lovely SlipperTalk folks!


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

I'm finally starting to find stuff other than Wikipedia mirrors. I found mention in a Kew publication.


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

In my opinion, the best Cyp resources are:

The Genus Cypripedium, Phillip Cribb
http://www.cypripedium.de/forum
http://www.w-frosch.onlinehome.de/menu_e.htm

Anyone know of any others?


----------



## Mahon (Sep 2, 2006)

Here's my input... the description on this possibly new Cypripedium will most likely be rejected, as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says under 23B. (_h_);

_"To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus."_

Since it says its from SE Yun Nan, this is going to be where _Paph. malipoense_ is going to be found... the other _Cyp._ species that are mentioned are those bifoliate, dwarf, highly mottled _Cyp._ species.

-PM


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Sep 2, 2006)

Definitely a Cypripedium, as it is compared to Cyp. lentiginosum.

http://translate.google.com/transla...ypripedium+malipoense&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=G

Jon
________
Schnitzer Motorsport


----------



## kentuckiense (Sep 3, 2006)

Yeah, after I read more than the first line I realized it was definitely a Trig. Cyp. I should've updated!


----------



## silence882 (Sep 3, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Here's my input... the description on this possibly new Cypripedium will most likely be rejected, as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature says under 23B. (_h_);
> 
> _"To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus."_
> 
> ...



This quotation is from Recommendation 23A.3(h). My understanding is that the recommendations are what authors should do in describing new taxa, but they are not grounds for rejecting the names.

From the Preamble:
"5. The Recommendations deal with subsidiary points, their object being to bring about greater uniformity and clarity, especially in future nomenclature; names contrary to a recommendation cannot, on that account, be rejected, but they are not examples to be followed."

--Stephen


----------



## Mahon (Sep 3, 2006)

I have the 1988 version, which differs ever so slightly over each revision (mine saying it is under _23B.1. (h)_... I think they revise the book every 12 years...) 

The reason I say the recommendation would be rejected is not because of the Botanical Congress, but more the people who grow, know, or describe the species... if this new "_Cyp. malipoense_" was described as a _species nova_, it would be implied (if one knew history of past placement of _Paphiopedilum_) that this had been found around the 1800's, and is assumed to be a synonym for _Paph. malipoense_... 

an example: _Cypripedium exul_, which was described in 1892 by O'Brien, was later revised and placed as _Paphiopedilum exul_ in 1896 by Rolfe. If one was to see an old drawing of this species, without knowing what _Paph. exul_ truly looks like, but knowing many _Cypripedium_ are now _Paphiopedilum_, it would be assumed the old synonym _Cyp. exul_ really means _Paph. exul_

the comparison: _Paphiopedilum malipoense_ was described in 1984, but the assumption of seeing the binary name "_Cyp. malipoense_" may suggest it is an older synonym, and is truly _Paph. malipoense_... though the suggestions in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are merely suggestions, the whole purpose of it all is to lessen confusion between related and un-related taxa, and have some uniform order... all this new "_Cyp. malipoense_" will cause is confusion (though apparently not here, as it is being well discussed)... there are other names that can be given, like a specific are in Yun Nan or in Malipo... or even name it after himself, he deserves it... =)

-Pat


----------



## yijiawang (Dec 22, 2006)

maybe I have grown this Cypr, it is from north of Vietnam, the shape very like C.lichiangense, but got some different from C.lichiangense. 
	Flower: petals are longer and separate. Spottes are much more bigger than lichiangense, black.
	Leaves: Bigger.
	Root: There are more obviously root fuzzy on it
	Altitude: 1000~2000meter, lower than lichiangense and easier to grow.
A colorful photograph on Genus of Cypripedium(Philip Cribb), I think maybe same species.


----------



## kentuckiense (Dec 22, 2006)

As I compare the line drawing to the photo, I'm starting to think they just aren't similar enough.


----------

