# General Orchid Taxonomy



## Braem (Nov 9, 2006)

Dear Folks,

as it has become obvious that some people do have a keen interest in taxonomic questions, I have decided to open this thread that should be devoted to *taxonomy questions only.* 

I will view this thread regularly and answer your questions and queries to the best of my ability. Anyone should feel free to post problems and questions in this thread, but I would like to see that *answers are given only by professionally trained plant taxonomists.*

Maybe this way, we can shorten some futile long discussions and have time to address the many _bona fide_ taxonomy problems. 

Guido

Prof. Dr. Guido J. Braem


----------



## lienluu (Nov 9, 2006)

Hello Dr. Braem,

I was wondering, what is _Paphiopedilum micranthum_ var. _albo-flavum_ Braem? 

Does it represent _P. micranthum_ that are nearly albino, such as this:

http://www.ex.biwa.ne.jp/~naoki/DSCF022411.JPG

Or does it represent the true albino _P. micranthum_ which Gruß and Roeth later (re)described as _Paphiopedilum micranthum_ fma. _glanzeanum_?

http://paphs.net/media/Paphs/micranthum4.JPG

Or does your description refer to a yellow form of _P. micranthum_? I have seen photos on the web, such as this one, which show a yellow form. I am unsure, however, if this is due to lighting during photography or if it is the true colour.

http://paphs.net/media/Paphs/micranthum3.JPG

Thanks
Lien


----------



## paphjoint (Nov 9, 2006)

Hopefully you asked the mods on this forum before setting up your own rules - this is NOT your forum


----------



## cdub (Nov 9, 2006)

But, it is HIS thread. And we could try to post according to the few and simple guidelines Dr. Braem requested. 

Welcome Dr. Braem. It will be nice to have some fresh views on taxonomy 'round here. 

How 'bout those micranthum's eh?


----------



## Braem (Nov 9, 2006)

_albo-flavum_ means nothing else than white and yellow (this is in reference to the flower of course). Thus the plant is an albino, but not an "alba". And yes it is the same as the taxon described by Olaf. 

regards
Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 9, 2006)

Lien, all three illustrations you have refer to the taxon I described, or if you want to the taxon Olaf described. This is the advantage of not using "alba" as a synonym for "albino", Anyone can see that parts of the flowers are white and other parts or yellow. Therefore "albo-flavum".

If there were a form that is pure yellow (which I doubt) then it could be described as "flavum". It would be different from "albo-flavum" but would still be an albino.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 9, 2006)

Paphjoint,

Just calm down. And remember that this is a thread on taxonomy. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. But I do like your posting. It clearly shows to all why these treads and forums become so overcrowded with nonsense.

Maybe you should note that I sign all my postings with my real name. And please feel free to complain about me with the webmasters.

Guido J. Braem


----------



## paphjoint (Nov 9, 2006)

Mr Braem, 

No reason to calm down your posts does not really excite me, 

Its common and widely accepted to use aliases in internet forums - and the use of an alias does not mean that I hide my ID - 


I did complain about your presence here to the mods - but as it is a free and openminded forum you're allowed to post here - so take this as an opportunity to be polite towards the forum members although they're not highly skilled botanists or taxonomists




Braem said:


> Paphjoint,
> 
> Just calm down. And remember that this is a thread on taxonomy. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. But I do like your posting. It clearly shows to all why these treads and forums become so overcrowded with nonsense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mahon (Nov 9, 2006)

I have a question for either Guido or Olaf... what has become of _Paph. hiepii_? I have heard that it is merely a bad flowering plant of _Paph. jackii_. Is there any relation between the _Paph. hiepii_ and the _Paph. jackii_ distribution? Are there any more plants and pictures?

Thanks for your help, 

-Pat


----------



## ORG (Nov 9, 2006)

Dear Patrick,
Paph. hiepii seems to be only a misformed jackii. All plants labeled as hiepii which I have seen in flower were jackii.


Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Braem (Nov 10, 2006)

Mahon,

Olaf is correct. The same information has been obtained from various sources, thus it should be regarded as fairly settled. Nevertheless, I do not know what causes the malformation. The explanation I have obtained some years ago from a French source was neither conclusive nor logical.

greetings
Guido


----------



## lienluu (Nov 10, 2006)

Braem said:


> Lien, all three illustrations you have refer to the taxon I described, or if you want to the taxon Olaf described. This is the advantage of not using "alba" as a synonym for "albino", Anyone can see that parts of the flowers are white and other parts or yellow. Therefore "albo-flavum".
> 
> If there were a form that is pure yellow (which I doubt) then it could be described as "flavum". It would be different from "albo-flavum" but would still be an albino.
> 
> Guido




Thank Dr. Braem.

So then, my next question is, if your description covers same taxon as that described by Olaf, does not yours take precendence over Olaf's?

May I also then ask, Olaf, why did you publish your description?

Thanks
Lien


----------



## Rick (Nov 10, 2006)

I am confused/concerned over the differences (or lack there of) for the hirsutissimum group.

I can't tell the difference between the nominal form and esquirolie even when the pictures are side by side. There seems to be enough variation within individual plants to acount for all possible variation of the varieties let alone giving them species status.

Compared to the differences between Phrag wallisii, and Phrag lindenii (that we argue about species vs subspecies status), it seems like there is inadequete consistent differences in the hirsutisimum group to even get varietal status.


----------



## Braem (Nov 10, 2006)

Lien,

The life of a taxonomist is quite complicated. It is very common, especially in orchids that several people work on the same concepts independently. As the date of publication of a journal is controlled by the publisher (and not by the author), it is often difficult to say when the publication will take place. Of course, taxonomists don't tell what they are working on. And they hope that their co-workers don't spill the beans either. And as long as anyone cam do taxonomy. independent of whether he/she has proper training, everyone wants his/her name on a plant ....

Obviously Olaf and I both are working on slippers and someone's publication is always first. Sometimes mine, sometimes Olaf's. Some people make a big fuzz when the "loose a race" (cfr. the kovachii/peruvianum debate). It does, however, happen to all of us. I don't make an issue out of it.

As long as one of the uppermost principles of plant taxonomy remains "priority" everyone tries to publish first. 

regards
Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 10, 2006)

Rick, that is one of the borderline cases.

here is some information from Braem & Chiron (2003)

"The question whether _Paphiopedilum esquirolei_ is a good autonomous species or "merely" a variant of _P. hirsutissimum_ is as old as its description ... "

and the key:

1. Peduncle and ovary covered with long hairs (hirsute), humps on the staminodal shield distinctly protruding ..... _P. hirsutissimum_
1a. Peduncle and ovary covered with very short hairs, humps on the staminodal shield only slightly protruding ..... _P. esquirolei_

Suffice it to say that taxonomists are pretty good at "splitting hairs":evil: 

regards
Guido





Rick said:


> I am confused/concerned over the differences (or lack there of) for the hirsutissimum group.
> 
> I can't tell the difference between the nominal form and esquirolie even when the pictures are side by side. There seems to be enough variation within individual plants to acount for all possible variation of the varieties let alone giving them species status.
> 
> Compared to the differences between Phrag wallisii, and Phrag lindenii (that we argue about species vs subspecies status), it seems like there is inadequete consistent differences in the hirsutisimum group to even get varietal status.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 10, 2006)

Now here is a non-taxonomists anecdotal observations of the differences between hirsutisimum and esquirolei...scientifically invalid due to my limited number of plants: hirs. has broader leaves than esquirolei, of a paler, (maybe more glaucous? ) shade of green (based on memories of a deceased plant).....and very unscientifically, much easier to bloom, and much more vigorous growth...Take care, Eric


----------



## Rick (Nov 10, 2006)

Braem said:


> Rick, that is one of the borderline cases.
> 
> Suffice it to say that taxonomists are pretty good at "splitting hairs":evil:
> 
> ...



Do you think in this case that taxonomists have split the hairs finer than any pollinator could tell the difference? I would hope that to attain species status there must be something that could provide reproductive isolation. My limited understanding of the geographical distribution of these taxa is that ranges are substantially overlapped.


----------



## Braem (Nov 11, 2006)

*hirsutissimum/esquirolei*

Eric,

yes, but all these "variations" can be explained by habitat variation. I (and others) have not heard of any difference that is really constant. One would have to investigate a statistical valid number of plants to study whether those criteria are an acceptable basis for species differentiation (which I doubt very much).

regards
Guido



Eric Muehlbauer said:


> Now here is a non-taxonomists anecdotal observations of the differences between hirsutisimum and esquirolei...scientifically invalid due to my limited number of plants: hirs. has broader leaves than esquirolei, of a paler, (maybe more glaucous? ) shade of green (based on memories of a deceased plant).....and very unscientifically, much easier to bloom, and much more vigorous growth...Take care, Eric


----------



## Braem (Nov 11, 2006)

*hirsutissimum/esquirolei*

Rick,

good question. Lately I have been communicating with a pollination expert, and he informed me that pollinators are not as specific as we hitherto have been thinking. 

Again, my personal view is that you can regards these are separate species, but that you can equally well consider them to be varieties of one species _(hirsutissimum)._ The overlapping distribution is not a criterion either. It may be an indication, but nothing more. Lots of species have overlapping distribution. And the thing with "reproductive isolation" is true only for animals. In plants it does not work.

The problem was, is, and remains the fact that there are no generally accepted rules by which we can decide how far two entities must be apart to be good autonomous species.

Of course, biologists try to make their taxonomy "rational" and "sensible", but still, it is, to a certain extent, subjective. 

The same problem is with adductum/anitum, hookerae/volonteanum, philippinense/roebelenii, etc. and that is why, in the latest book (Braem & Chiron) I put these paars in "complexes" and don't say that these are all separate species _per se._

regards
Guido




Rick said:


> Do you think in this case that taxonomists have split the hairs finer than any pollinator could tell the difference? I would hope that to attain species status there must be something that could provide reproductive isolation. My limited understanding of the geographical distribution of these taxa is that ranges are substantially overlapped.


----------



## Ernie (Nov 11, 2006)

*anamense*

Dr. Braem,

Love the idea. Now for my first question... one word: anamense??? Species, variety of villosum, garbage, syn of affine (then what's affine)? Go.  Thanks for your expertise! 

-Ernie


----------



## Braem (Nov 12, 2006)

*Anamense*

Ernie,

it is a _form_ of _villosum_ (see Braem & Chiron page 148) where it is explained in detail.

But beware. There is also an artificial hybrid (Asburtobiae x Nuna) that has been named _P. _Anamense. You should not confuse the two. Again see Braem & Chiron page 148. The correct name for this hybrid is _P._ Whitefieldense.

Regards
Guido






Ernie said:


> Dr. Braem,
> 
> Love the idea. Now for my first question... one word: anamense??? Species, variety of villosum, garbage, syn of affine (then what's affine)? Go.  Thanks for your expertise!
> 
> -Ernie


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 14, 2006)

OK Guido and Olaf,

I have a question for the both of you. I don't know if you have been following the threads regarding the discovery of Phrag. besseae and the IN-SITU pictures of Phrag. besseae by Kyle.

Anyway my question for you is: do both of you think that Phrag. dalessandroi is distinct enough form Phrag. besseae to warrant it to species rank? And if you consider it to be a different species what characteristics make it different enough from Phrag. besseae to consider it to be a different species.

In my opinon Phrag. dalessandroi should not be considered a species, but a variety (or subspecies) of Phrag. besseae. I think Phrag. besseae is a highly variable species, and that what some people call Phrag. dalessandroi it just one of the "extreme" populations within the species of Phrag. besseae.

If you look at Kyle's pictures, and also the plants that Jerry collected in Peru in the 80's they show charcteristics that are intermediate between Phrag. besseae and Phrag. dalessandroi. Some people would call these natural hybrids between Phrag. besseae and Phrag. dalessandroi, but I would call them "intermediate" populations of Phrag besseae that show charcteristics of the true Phrag besseae (of what is considered to be the "type" of Phrag. besseae) and Phrag. dalessandroi. Also if you have these "intermediate" populations or natural hybrids, is this not proof that you have gene flow going on from one population to another (or as some people would say form dallesandroi to besseae) and as you have gene flow going on this would be a reason to lump them all in the same species: Phrag. besseae.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Nov 14, 2006)

Wow, I will just have to watch and learn from this thread.


----------



## ORG (Nov 14, 2006)

Dear Robert,
Phrag. dalessandroi is distinct enough from besseae to describe it as distinct. If the differences are enough for a the ranking as a species is a subjective decision. When Dodson described this species together with me we thought that the differences are enough. But we must learn more and more after the publication of the description. So another tacxonomist could decide also that the level of a variety or subspecies is enough. I could live with so a decision. But it will be necessary for the future that we label our plants correctly and that we don't mix all these different regional plants in our collections or in artificial propagation under the same name, that we don't know in the future which are the true plants from the wild and were they come from.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 14, 2006)

Olaf, 

Thank you for your opinions, so my next question is what should we label the plants that Jerry collected in Peru . Following are pictures of one of these plants from another thread (photos taken by Kentuckiense):








And here is a shot of the bloom:






The flowers are intermediate between Phrag. besseae and Phrag delassandroi. They do not form stolons (a characteristic of delassandroi), but yet they do not get as many flowers on a stem as delassandroi.

For now we have labelled this clone as Phrag. besseae 'Peru88'

Robert


----------



## ORG (Nov 14, 2006)

Dear Robert,
I had thought about when I have seen your thread about, but did not found an answer for the moment.
It will be always a problem to define strict lines between species. Especially in Paphiopedilum you can find so many plants between the speciesborders, typical example is the now described Paph. wenshanense, the group around Paph. villosum or around barbigerum.
But please could you mail me the picturesof your plant in better solution to my mailadress, and when it be possible also from the side and the staminode.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Heather (Nov 14, 2006)

I purchased one of these which was very similar to the one Kentuckiense and Robert posted. Same shape, same clumping growth habit, no stolons. I bought it from Dennis D'alessandro. Jane bought it from me a few weeks ago. Hopefully when it blooms she can perhaps send photos to Olaf also.


----------



## ORG (Nov 14, 2006)

Thanks Heather


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 14, 2006)

Now....do all straight bessaea's form climbing stolon's? My bess. has a typical, and beautiful, bess. shaped flower....does not look at all like d'allessandroi. But it is a compact grower that has never done any kind of climbing, unlike most bess. hybrids that I have. Take care, Eric


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Nov 14, 2006)

I heard a rumor and was wondering if it may be more than a rumor.

I know the taxonomy of Phrags. kaieteurum, lindleyanum, and sargentianum has always been an open debate, but I recently heard that lindleyanum is going to take precedence when any of the taxa are used in a hybrid. This would make hybrids Rosalie Dixler, Andean Fire, and Mem. Dick Clements all Phrag. Andean Fire. Is this true?


----------



## NYEric (Nov 15, 2006)

The solution is simple. Send one sample of each plant to me. Thank You. :rollhappy:


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 15, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> I heard a rumor and was wondering if it may be more than a rumor.
> 
> I know the taxonomy of Phrags. kaieteurum, lindleyanum, and sargentianum has always been an open debate, but I recently heard that lindleyanum is going to take precedence when any of the taxa are used in a hybrid. This would make hybrids Rosalie Dixler, Andean Fire, and Mem. Dick Clements all Phrag. Andean Fire. Is this true?



If this is true would all Phrag. Jason Fischer's become Phrag. Inca Fire (= Andean Fire x besseae)? I am sure Jason won't be happy with that!

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Nov 15, 2006)

Now that's hillarious!


----------



## Braem (Nov 15, 2006)

*besseae/dalessandro*

Robert,

The main criterion on which _P. dalessandroi_ has been based as a separate species is the difference in chromosome count. All other differences could be fairly easy explained away. Now, I do know that plants within a species can have different chromosome counts (for example in _Tolumnia guianense,_ I have counted myself 40, 41 and 42)

It is Interesting that Wimber in 1994 put _P. besseae_ var. _dalessandroi _as having been counted with *28 chromosomes *just as _P. besseae _itself, and talks of a _"Peruvian besseae" _with 24 chromosomes. 

Dodson & Gruss argue that _P. besseae_ always has 24 chromosomes. But that is contradicted by the Wimber counts of tetraploid _P. besseae_ with 56 chromosomes (56/2 = 28). 
Having known Wimber, and having seen the pictures of his publication, I doubt that he made a mistake.

Furthermore, it is known that _P. dalessandroi_ and_ P. besseae_ cross freely, and I must tell you that it is impossible to know how many artificially bred_ "P. besseae"_ out there are in fact a cross between the two. And only the gods know what has been used to "create" the _"P. besseae" _hybrids that are so popular.

Thus for me, the arguments pro "single species" _(P. besseae)_ are better than those supporting two different species. In Chriron, Chiron & Braem (2006) we included DNA material of 3 different wild collected _besseae_ and from 1 wild collected _dalessandroi _(I don't care if someone screems "bad boy"). The results show that _dalessandroi_ and_ besseae_ are *very, very, very closely related.*

But then, the same applies for _P. schlimii_ and _P. fischeri._

Beware, the publication is in French and Dodson & Gruss's publication is in German.

I know from "well-informed" sources that 1) the distribution areas of "true _besseae" _overlap with those of _P. dalessandroi _and that (2) there is distinct variation within "true _besseae". _The pollination syndrome is very similar and may well be the same seen through the eyes of an insect. Therefore "intermediates" do not surprise me at all. 


Guido










Drorchid said:


> OK Guido and Olaf,
> 
> I have a question for the both of you. I don't know if you have been following the threads regarding the discovery of Phrag. besseae and the IN-SITU pictures of Phrag. besseae by Kyle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 15, 2006)

*besseae/dalessandroi*

Bravo Olaf!

Guido



ORG said:


> Dear Robert,
> Phrag. dalessandroi is distinct enough from besseae to describe it as distinct. If the differences are enough for a the ranking as a species is a subjective decision. When Dodson described this species together with me we thought that the differences are enough. But we must learn more and more after the publication of the description. So another tacxonomist could decide also that the level of a variety or subspecies is enough. I could live with so a decision. But it will be necessary for the future that we label our plants correctly and that we don't mix all these different regional plants in our collections or in artificial propagation under the same name, that we don't know in the future which are the true plants from the wild and were they come from.
> 
> Best greetings
> ...


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 15, 2006)

Thanks Guido! I think I agree with you regarding the besseae/dallesandroi debate. I also think that fischeri and schlimii are very closely related, but to me (unllike with besseae/dallesandroi) those are 2 distinct species. I think they are distinct because if you would have a greenhouse that would be full with just fischeri's and schlimii's (but all mixed up) I would easily be able to detect which of those are schlimmii and which are fischeri. The flower shape/color is very different; the staminodal shield is different (both in shape and color); growth habit is very different, and fischeri is always autogamous (selfpollinating) while schlimii is not. I don't know if I would be able to do the same if we have a greenhouse full of besseae's and dallesandroi's; especially if you would have clones like 'Peru88' that have characteristics of both species (I have never seen a fischeri, that kind of looks like a schlimii, or visa versa).

Olaf; as soon as Phrag. besseae 'Peru88' is in bloom I will send you detailed pictures.

Robert


----------



## Braem (Nov 15, 2006)

Eric,

if and when you mix Botany with Horticulture, just about anything becomes hilarious. And as my estimate is that 70 or more % of all orchid hybrids are not that what they are labeled as .... 

Guido



NYEric said:


> Now that's hillarious!


----------



## Heather (Nov 15, 2006)

Braem said:


> Eric,
> 
> if and when you mix Botany with Horticulture, just about anything becomes hilarious. And as my estimate is that 70 or more % of all orchid hybrids are not that what they are labeled as ....
> 
> Guido



Oh...goody!!!


----------



## Braem (Nov 15, 2006)

Robert,

you don't have to convince ME that _P. fischeri _is a good species. I described it. 

Guido



Drorchid said:


> Thanks Guido! I think I agree with you regarding the besseae/dallesandroi debate. I also think that fischeri and schlimii are very closely related, but to me (unllike with besseae/dallesandroi) those are 2 distinct species. I think they are distinct because if you would have a greenhouse that would be full with just fischeri's and schlimii's (but all mixed up) I would easily be able to detect which of those are schlimmii and which are fischeri. The flower shape/color is very different; the staminodal shield is different (both in shape and color); growth habit is very different, and fischeri is always autogamous (selfpollinating) while schlimii is not. I don't know if I would be able to do the same if we have a greenhouse full of besseae's and dallesandroi's; especially if you would have clones like 'Peru88' that have characteristics of both species (I have never seen a fischeri, that kind of looks like a schlimii, or visa versa).
> 
> Olaf; as soon as Phrag. besseae 'Peru88' is in bloom I will send you detailed pictures.
> 
> Robert


----------



## NYEric (Nov 16, 2006)

I have a small problem, as Heather might, that a plant which I purchased as a species is actually a hybrid. The issue of the natural mixing of besseae w/ dalessandroi will complicate the hybridization further down the road; i.e. plants registered as besseae X n are really besseae X dalessandroi X n. I have noted that plants w/ [what I consider] the _real_ dalessendroi pick up the drooping petals and the orange/yellow color. I think some of the breeding besseae lines need to be investigated on a genetic level so sort out the besseae hybrid mess that will probably come up.


----------



## Braem (Nov 16, 2006)

*Messy hybrids*

Eric,

that is exactly the point. Lets not forget some past disasters .... Phrag. "schlimii" Wilcox & Birchwood, some of the P. "Hanne Popow", P. Sedenii, the many plants that were awarded under a false name, then used as hybridisation parents, etc. etc. Lets remember the zillions of P. Prince Edward of York that were sold as P. sanderianum, the zillions of P. Pinocchio that were sold as P. primulinum, the P. papuanum that was (and still is) confused with P. violascence, and I could go on for another couple of hours.

But the genetic analysis gives you some indication, not a definate answer. Furthermore it is just too expensive to check the hybrids.

Guido




NYEric said:


> I have a small problem, as Heather might, that a plant which I purchased as a species is actually a hybrid. The issue of the natural mixing of besseae w/ dalessandroi will complicate the hybridization further down the road; i.e. plants registered as besseae X n are really besseae X dalessandroi X n. I have noted that plants w/ [what I consider] the _real_ dalessendroi pick up the drooping petals and the orange/yellow color. I think some of the breeding besseae lines need to be investigated on a genetic level so sort out the besseae hybrid mess that will probably come up.


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 16, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I have a small problem, as Heather might, that a plant which I purchased as a species is actually a hybrid. The issue of the natural mixing of besseae w/ dalessandroi will complicate the hybridization further down the road; i.e. plants registered as besseae X n are really besseae X dalessandroi X n. I have noted that plants w/ [what I consider] the _real_ dalessendroi pick up the drooping petals and the orange/yellow color. I think some of the breeding besseae lines need to be investigated on a genetic level so sort out the besseae hybrid mess that will probably come up.



That is one of the reasons why I would like the lump Phrag. dallesandroi with Phrag. besseae. If this would be the case we would have no problem, as Phrag. besseae var besseae x Phrag. besseae var. dallesandroi would still be Phrag. besseae (and not Phrag. Jersey).

Just as an example: a lot of hybridizers, including perhaps ourselves, did not realize at the time (before 'dalesandroi' was described) that some of their "Phrag besseae" like Phrag. besseae 'Peru88' were actually Phrag. dalesandroi 'Peru88' or Phrag x Jersey 'Peru88' (natural hybrid).

(Now this is all theoretical) We may have crossed 'Peru88' with another 'true type' besseae, and the offspring of that cross may have been crossed to sargentianum to make Mem. Dick Clements, and that was crossed to a third Generation besseae (that may have been x Jersey crossed to besseae or to dalessandroi...who knows), but we called it Phrag. besseae, and the resulting hybrid was Phrag. Jason Fischer (as we believed all the besseae's were true besseae's)......you see where I am going with this.....Guido is right that a lot of the Hybrid names are not correct, just because the species used don't always have the correct names......but if we all label the besseae-dalessandroi complex as Phrag. besseae we would not have this problem.

I do agree, that if we know that if a plant is from the wild and is the dalessandroi form to keep that name with it (as Phrag. besseae var. dalessandroi), but as soon as you mix the different forms together and get 2nd, 3rd or more generations, just to call them Phrag. besseae; wouldn't you rather call it that then having Phrag Jersey x besseae x dalesandroi x Jersey x ........x besseae being some hybrid name that looks identical to a Phrag. besseae??

Robert


----------



## Rick (Nov 16, 2006)

Braem said:


> Eric,
> 
> that is exactly the point. Lets not forget some past disasters .... Phrag. "schlimii" Wilcox & Birchwood, some of the P. "Hanne Popow", P. Sedenii, the many plants that were awarded under a false name, then used as hybridisation parents, etc. etc. Lets remember the zillions of P. Prince Edward of York that were sold as P. sanderianum, the zillions of P. Pinocchio that were sold as P. primulinum, the P. papuanum that was (and still is) confused with P. violascence, and I could go on for another couple of hours.
> 
> ...



Guido 
You also hit it in on the head as to where allot of animosity to taxonomy comes from. Breeders and conservationists don't always have the time (patience) and space to store whole populations of plants with questionable taxonomy waiting for a consensus description or taxa status. Furthermore, record keeping becomes enormously problematic when status or names change. I can realize that without good collection (source) data the description of taxa is very risky, and the divisions between taxa based on morphometric data can be a difficult Best Proffesional Judgement. But we really do count on you taxonomist guys (and gals) to draw those lines for us horticulturists, and its a big let down when the aformentioned disasters occur.

This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.


----------



## Heather (Nov 16, 2006)

Rick said:


> This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.



Agreed! 

This has been a great thread and I hope that everyone keeps asking more questions! 

I just wanted to recount a recent experience. At the MOS show someone had classified a schlimii 'Birchwood' or 'Wilcox' (I cannot recall which but the point is that it was not schlimii!) as a species. An experienced Paph. grower! It continues to amaze me that people who seriously grow paphs STILL don't know this (or care enough to classify it correctly? I don't know which.) Luckily, most of the slipper judging team knew that this needed to be included as a hybrid, and changed the classification, but it is important for all of us to learn of these past mistakes.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 16, 2006)

Don't you mean Phrag. grower?oke:


----------



## Braem (Nov 17, 2006)

*Indentities and problems*

Rick,

yes. but now we have some additional problems. 

1) time: Breeders and conservationists will have to take the time to store populations with questionable taxonomy IF we want this problem sold.

2) Who tells you that the provenance given is correct. Hell, the practice of indication an "erroneous" area where the plants were allegedly collected is as old as the orchid collections in the 18th century, and many authors (including myself) will not necessarily disclose the exact area to protect the species and to protect the collector from paranoid CITES maniacs.

3) Many people, for good reasons will not disclose the provenance of their plants. If you have a beautifully flowering _P. kovachii_ in your greenhouse, are you going to say where you got it from? (just one example) In our DNA study on _Phragmipedium_ we have explicitly refused to say where we got our material of _P. kovachii _ from (we included material from three wild collected plants from different sources. Most of you would be very, very surprised if I were to tell you where I got the material of said species and others such as wild collected _P. exstaminodium_ from). I and and others will keep on doing this to protect our sources from the CITES maniacs. (Just like journalist refuse to name their sources). 

The ONLY solution (I know that the screaming will start) is to scrap the old system. STOP breeding with uncertain material. Accept Hybrid registrations ONLY when the parents are positively identified *by independent sources*. How this can be inforced ??? 

What we need is a conference about the problem under co-operation with the RHS. We should have it in London.

If there is a serious attempt to do this, I will co-operate.

Guido





Rick said:


> Guido
> You also hit it in on the head as to where allot of animosity to taxonomy comes from. Breeders and conservationists don't always have the time (patience) and space to store whole populations of plants with questionable taxonomy waiting for a consensus description or taxa status. Furthermore, record keeping becomes enormously problematic when status or names change. I can realize that without good collection (source) data the description of taxa is very risky, and the divisions between taxa based on morphometric data can be a difficult Best Proffesional Judgement. But we really do count on you taxonomist guys (and gals) to draw those lines for us horticulturists, and its a big let down when the aformentioned disasters occur.
> 
> This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.


----------



## Braem (Nov 17, 2006)

Heather,

at the Miami Orchid Show in 1999 (or 1998 ... I forget), a plant was exhibited as _P. philippinense_ (big label). The plant was *a pure dark red complex Phragmipedium hybrid! * Several people, including myself, pointed this out to the exhibitor who was a well-known orchid grower from Florida. She told us that we were wrong and refused to take the label away.

The _Phrag. schlimii_ story is well-known. It has been ongoing since 1975 if I am not mistaken. I have written an article in Orchids about it ... *but the editor removed the picture of the true schlimii!!!*

Do you believe that anything surprises me? 

Guido




Heather said:


> Agreed!
> 
> This has been a great thread and I hope that everyone keeps asking more questions!
> 
> I just wanted to recount a recent experience. At the MOS show someone had classified a schlimii 'Birchwood' or 'Wilcox' (I cannot recall which but the point is that it was not schlimii!) as a species. An experienced Paph. grower! It continues to amaze me that people who seriously grow paphs STILL don't know this (or care enough to classify it correctly? I don't know which.) Luckily, most of the slipper judging team knew that this needed to be included as a hybrid, and changed the classification, but it is important for all of us to learn of these past mistakes.


----------



## Heather (Nov 17, 2006)

Braem said:


> Do you believe that anything surprises me?
> 
> Guido



Nope!


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 17, 2006)

Braem said:


> Rick,
> 
> STOP breeding with uncertain material. Accept Hybrid registrations ONLY when the parents are positively identified *by independent sources*. How this can be inforced ???
> 
> Guido



Guido, 

Unfortunately this will be very hard to do. Breeders and Horticulturists (myself included) when they look at a plant they look for "Horticultural" properties first (and their first thought is usually not if the "Taxonomy" or "Label" is correct or not, although myself as I have a Taxonomic background always look at the label, and try to make sure it is the correct name, but not all Horticulturists think like me), so if they see something in the greenhouse that is blooming that has say amazing flowers with interesting colors or shapes, they will use that to hybridize with no matter what, and they do not care too much what the Label says it is . Off course they run into problems when they register the offspring of this plant, and usually go by what the label says (even though it may be incorrect). This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of hybrids get wrong names.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Nov 17, 2006)

*taxonomy vs horticulture*

When financial issues, similar to the ownership of dot-coms and other intellectual property, becomes important there will be a great need to correct these problems. If an owner says they have the true plant and a court backs up the claim and allows the owner to charge licensing to use the name the [defication will hit the rotary occilator]. I constantly see cases where owners of names are now collecting royalties from businesses that have been using the common name for years. [Imagine Xerox charging for using their name as a term.] I think the RHS has had their own adjenda guiding their policies so I agree a board or panel should review the plants. If there is a real problem w/ the parentage move the investigation to the genetic level.


----------



## Braem (Nov 17, 2006)

Robert,


you can't have it both. You can't sit on a case of dynamite smoking and have my assurance that you are not going to end up with those virgins in heaven.:evil: 

You tell me that there is a problem (and there is!), but you also tell me that you (and many others don't want to do anything about it). The old saying is that good medicine tastes bitter. But bitter medicine is always better than dying because of refusing to take bitter medicine. 

Guido



Drorchid said:


> Guido,
> 
> Unfortunately this will be very hard to do. Breeders and Horticulturists (myself included) when they look at a plant they look for "Horticultural" properties first (and their first thought is usually not if the "Taxonomy" or "Label" is correct or not, although myself as I have a Taxonomic background always look at the label, and try to make sure it is the correct name, but not all Horticulturists think like me), so if they see something in the greenhouse that is blooming that has say amazing flowers with interesting colors or shapes, they will use that to hybridize with no matter what, and they do not care too much what the Label says it is . Off course they run into problems when they register the offspring of this plant, and usually go by what the label says (even though it may be incorrect). This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of hybrids get wrong names.
> 
> Robert


----------



## Braem (Nov 17, 2006)

Eric,

You seem to be a true believer of genetics. Again and again I have proven that genetics (with the methods of today) is NOT the _non plus ultra._ DNA results really can "rule out" things, they cannot "prove" things, at least not at the level we are talking about. And when we are dealing with hybrids, the problem becomes very much enlarged. 

Guido



NYEric said:


> When financial issues, similar to the ownership of dot-coms and other intellectual property, becomes important there will be a great need to correct these problems. If an owner says they have the true plant and a court backs up the claim and allows the owner to charge licensing to use the name the [defication will hit the rotary occilator]. I constantly see cases where owners of names are now collecting royalties from businesses that have been using the common name for years. [Imagine Xerox charging for using their name as a term.] I think the RHS has had their own adjenda guiding their policies so I agree a board or panel should review the plants. If there is a real problem w/ the parentage move the investigation to the genetic level.


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 17, 2006)

Braem said:


> Robert,
> 
> 
> you can't have it both. You can't sit on a case of dynamite smoking and have my assurance that you are not going to end up with those virgins in heaven.:evil:
> ...



Guido,

You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.

Luckily for you I am both a Scientist/Taxonomist and a Horticulturist, so for me the Label is very important, and I always want to make sure the plant that I am using for my breeding work has the correct label, so it would be nice if there was a way or a system in place if People can verify that the parents that they are using have the right names before they register them with the RHS. Unfortunately this will just add to the bureaucracy. Perhaps one easy way of doing that is that a person has to include pictures of the parents.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Nov 17, 2006)

Mr. Braem, from the list of Phrag. besseae hybrids I've noted in my collection [I hope they're besseae] you can see that we are into f5 x f5 hybrids. Of course as we mix in more _besseae the lines will blur. At a certain point we wont be able to look at a hybrid and determine what is in it. I personally wont care as long as it looks good but suppose Jason Fischer is allowed to charge vendors a penny royalty for every plant sold with his name on it. You can bet your @$$ that I'm going to determine that my plants are really dalessandroi x Mem. Dick Clemens. [Of course then I'll have Dennis to deal with..Yikes!] oke:_


----------



## Heather (Nov 17, 2006)

See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true _besseae var. dalessandroi_ or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!

Speaking of the _philippinense_ mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a _philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii_ based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!) 

Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.


----------



## Rick (Nov 17, 2006)

My impression of the process of describing a new taxa (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Is that it is a race done by individuals or small closed teams of individuals. The primary tool is morphometric analysis, and sometimes population analysis is added.

Once the new taxon is described in print (is there a peer review process?), then it seems like other taxonomists get there shot at accepting or debunking the status (over a long period of time).

Is it possible (or is it already being done) that new material be passed around to several taxonomists, population biologists, and DNA analyists all at one time before a new taxa gets officially described?

Scientific methods to differentiate will always continue to improve, but it may make the first name more robust for a longer time to develop new species lables by consensus.


----------



## Braem (Nov 18, 2006)

*Botany/horticulture*

Robert,

OK. But the "gods" of Taxonomy, at the two last congresses, have incorporated horticulture (at least in part) into the Code and thus into the rules. But horticulture cannot on the one side say: "Hey we want to be into the deal" and on the other side "But we don't give a hoot about what the taxonomists do."
Either you are in, or you are out. And if you are in, you have to live with us. And if you live with us, you have to accept that we MUST change the names if there is scientific reason to do so. Admittedly, not all the name changes prove to be correct, but a lot are.

Including pictures of the parents is just not ernough. Who garantees that the pictures are the pictures of the real parents. And again, if we don't do away with the past, the future will not work either. etc. etc. 
It is like using wood that is already rotten to build a new house.


I should not be writing this at 2:30 AM. Even taxonomists get tired.

Guido






Drorchid said:


> Guido,
> 
> You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 18, 2006)

*Problems*

Eric,

first of all, in my opinion NO living organism, be it Monera, Protista, Fungus, Plant or Animal or any variety, form, part, or product thereof should be subject to any patent or the like. The Fauna and Flora of this world belongs to nature, not to any humans. (I guess I will be accused of being a philosopher again).

secondly, I know both Jason and Dennis. Therefore, I will refrain from commenting on who would be more difficult to deal with.

Thirdly, I don't think that with the present methods anyone can positively determine a hybrid beyond F1 (and I have my doubts about F1 as well).

and lastly, you can bet your @$$, that there is no court in the world who will need less than 10 years to find a decison on whether _P. dalessandroi _and _P. besseae_ are conspecific or not. So, why worry? 
If I were a commercial grower and would make _"P._ Jason Fisher", and someone would sue me for royalties, all that I would say: Prove that my plants are _"P. _Jason Fisher", prove that I made them, and prove that I sold them knowing that I did wrong (that are the criteria over here). 

I want to see anyone, whether Jason, Dennis, Jane Doo or Micky Mouse take me to court because of a 10 cent royalty for a plant. 

Afterthought: we should not worry about the possible madness of certain lawyers and judicial systems. We should get taxonomy straightened out and give the horticulturists names they can rely on. And the horticulturists should breed with properly identified plants and forget anything that is old and rotten.

The _P. besseae_ problem is but one example. But it is not that easy to solve. Even if you put dalessandroi togetter with besseae again, you still have "varieties" or "forms" that breed differently.

Guido



NYEric said:


> Mr. Braem, from the list of Phrag. besseae hybrids I've noted in my collection [I hope they're besseae] you can see that we are into f5 x f5 hybrids. Of course as we mix in more _besseae the lines will blur. At a certain point we wont be able to look at a hybrid and determine what is in it. I personally wont care as long as it looks good but suppose Jason Fischer is allowed to charge vendors a penny royalty for every plant sold with his name on it. You can bet your @$$ that I'm going to determine that my plants are really dalessandroi x Mem. Dick Clemens. [Of course then I'll have Dennis to deal with..Yikes!] oke:_


----------



## Braem (Nov 18, 2006)

Heather,

no-one tires me that fast, but it is 3 AM and I will allow myself of asking you to wait for a decent answer until later today. 

But anyway, I am pretty glad that I seem to have started a discussion that is accepted by quite a few.

Guido




Heather said:


> See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true _besseae var. dalessandroi_ or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!
> 
> Speaking of the _philippinense_ mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a _philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii_ based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!)
> 
> Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Dear Robert,

Sorry that I misunderstood you. Yes, something MUST be done. And yes, it will be difficult. But we should try. And how can we do it. I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.

Guido



Drorchid said:


> Guido,
> 
> You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Heather,

I agree with you. We must get the correct names out there. If we are going to straighten out the mess we need many things.

1) leave taxonomy to the taxonomists (that will cut the new names, and still leave enough room to quarrel).
2) Set up a set of rules to delineate entities. That will be the most difficult task.
3) Set up award groups and commercial grower groups that award ONLY properly identified plants and breed ONLY with properly identified plants.

Now to _philippinense:_

First of all let me put in a plug for the book (Webmaster forgive me).
Many of the problems in _Paphiopedilum_ have been addressed by some strange Belgian-born, German taxonomist working in the depths of the Hessian jungle. 

Braem & Chiron, 
_Paphiopedilum,_ 2003
Tropicalia. The book is available in the USA and Canada through Linda Petchnick. Just "google" for her website.
It is Christmas time soon, and some might still have someone asking: "What do you wish for Christmas?" and before you get 3 pairs of socks or your 17th silk tie ... put the book on your list. 

Now there, Dear Heather, you will also find the differentiation between _philippinense_ and _roebelenii _and you will read (page 349) that Reichenbach himself was not sure about the taxonomic status of his _"Cyp. roebbelenii"_

And on page 353 you will find:

_"Paphiopedilum roebbelenii_ is similar to its close relative _P. philippinense. _It differs, however, in narrower leaves, by the higher density of the hairs on the peduncle, and by the lack of green markings on the staminodal shield."

Quotes with the generous and kind permission of the author  

Guido




Heather said:


> See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true _besseae var. dalessandroi_ or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!
> 
> Speaking of the _philippinense_ mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a _philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii_ based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!)
> 
> Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.


----------



## lienluu (Nov 19, 2006)

Braem said:


> Dear Robert,
> 
> Sorry that I misunderstood you. Yes, something MUST be done. And yes, it will be difficult. But we should try. And how can we do it. I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.
> 
> Guido




A wonderful idea, perhaps we can start a new forum category for this?


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Rick, 

Oh Oh ... here we go again:

1) No-one has yet come up with a better idea than "priority". Therefore, if priority is "on" there is a race for publication. And as humans are humans, there are people that steal other peoples ideas. I will not give any names here, but I have suffered from that myself even very recently. Therefore, no-one discloses his/her ideas before publication, and even that has now been proven to allow crooks to express their criminal energy.

2) As long as ANYONE can publish taxa, one has to be very, very careful what one says even when visiting an orchid society for a lecture or when being invited to view some amateur greenhouse. And again, I know what I am talking about. I have learned the hard way.

2) Peer review: I have gone through this discussion before:

I am peer reviewer for 4 (four) journals, two of which are very famous, international botany journals (and I always allow my name to be disclosed). Thus again, I know what I talk about:

a) peer review CAN be helpful. It is NOT AUTOMATICALLY a garantee. There have been bull articles in _Science _and _Nature_ and in many in peer review botanical journals.
b) non-peer review journals MAY be lesser "quality", they don't have to be.
c) remember the rule of priority.
d) peer reviewers are very often not familiar with the topic and make wrong decisions. One of my articles was refused by two peer reviewers who claimed I had founded my argumentation on the wrong rules in the Code and even accused me of misquoting the Code. I asked the Editor in chief to read the Code and he had to conclude that his two peer reviewers (USA botanists) were not capable of reading plain English (and I am being VERY diplomatic). (Just one little example ... there are many more).
d) Most orchid literature is done in non-peer review journals: _Orchid Digest, Orchid Review, Australian Orchid Review, Die Orchidee, Caesiana, L' Orchidophile, Orchids _(formely _AOS Bulletin_). Now, Jim Watson of _Orchids_ changes manuscripts without the permisiion of the authors, Harold Koopowitz refused to publish an article of mine (after soliciting it) because he did "not want to upset Bob Dressler". On the other hand, he published an article of Bob Dressler on the subject with obvious wrong data.
Olaf Gruss can publish anything he wants in _Die Orchidee._ Harold could even describe his own grandma as a Paph. hybrid and get away with it in _OD._ Luer could tranfer _Diefenbachia_ to_ Lepanthes_ and Missouri would publish it. After that he would be hailed (sp) as the Guru again in the _Pleurothallid Alliance Newsletter._ Koeniger created his own Journal to publish ONLY his own taxa. No delay, no questions ... and for God's sake, no publications of any botanist or anyone else [Königer told me himself. He wanted me to write an article on the typification of _Oncidium,_ but he wanted to publish it under his name.] 

Today, all it needs to have a publication is a PDF file and two friends at a University or a botanical garden that confirm that they have received the "publication" 8 weeks before, and you can beat ANY publication. 

Conclusion, the rules stink. And serious attempts to change them have not found consent.

And yes, the primary tool for a taxonomist is general botany, morphology, anatomy, and it should be that way. This should be paired with secondary tools such as chromosome counting, Karyotyping, Electron microscopy, DNA study etc. etc. But the basis of taxonomy must remain alpha-taxonomy. Or do you have an electron microscope available to check sub molecular differences in plants??? This is just one example.

Enough for one post.

Guido








Rick said:


> My impression of the process of describing a new taxa (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Is that it is a race done by individuals or small closed teams of individuals. The primary tool is morphometric analysis, and sometimes population analysis is added.
> 
> Once the new taxon is described in print (is there a peer review process?), then it seems like other taxonomists get there shot at accepting or debunking the status (over a long period of time).
> 
> ...


----------



## Wendy (Nov 19, 2006)

What about Phrag tetzlaffianum? In your opinion is it a species or a hybrid? I have heard that it may be in fact Phrag Simon Marcotte (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum). I have both plant but to date have only bloomed the tetzlaffianum and have been unable to compare.


----------



## Heather (Nov 19, 2006)

Braem said:


> I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.
> 
> Guido



I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?


----------



## Heather (Nov 19, 2006)

Braem said:


> Braem & Chiron,
> _Paphiopedilum,_ 2003
> Tropicalia. The book is available in the USA and Canada through Linda Petchnick. Just "google" for her website.
> It is Christmas time soon, and some might still have someone asking: "What do you wish for Christmas?" and before you get 3 pairs of socks or your 17th silk tie ... put the book on your list.



Yes, that would be the one I don't have.  
who needs socks anyway? 

However, I brought _The Genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation, Vol. 1_ to work with me this morning and saw the same on p. 156. 

One thing I am a bit confused about is the difference between 'type' and 'variety'. Is there a difference or are those two terms interchangeable? Is it true then that _Paph. palawense_ should be referred to as _Paph. philippinense var. palawense_? On p. 151, the photo caption reads "type" (I love that plant by the way!) but on p. 154 under the aureum variety of _Paph. philippinense_, the photo caption reads _"Paph. philippinense var."_

I'm generally a bit anal about making sure I name my plants correctly, in case you hadn't noticed yet.


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

*Phrag. tetzlaffianum*

Wendy,

That is exactly my state of knowledge about the situation. It is definitely not a good species. "Well informed" sources out of Canada have informed me that the plant sent to Olaf was in fact an awarded clone of _Phragmipedium _Simon Marcotte. I have no evidence that would speak against that.

In any case, it is not a species. There is no record, whatsoever of the plant ever having been collected in the wild. 

_Phragmipedium_ Simon Marcotte is a F3 hybrid and will therefore be very variable. Thus comparing a single plant won't do and will prove nothing.

Guido




Wendy said:


> What about Phrag tetzlaffianum? In your opinion is it a species or a hybrid? I have heard that it may be in fact Phrag Simon Marcotte (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum). I have both plant but to date have only bloomed the tetzlaffianum and have been unable to compare.


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Ha,

so I assume that Heather is one of the webmasters. Good. 
Heather, I am thinking about it ... give me a little time.

Guido



Heather said:


> I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Heather,

Best is to check http://www.orchidpainter.com
The good looking woman is Linda. Give her my regards, I haven't heard from her in ages.
There is a link to the book.

About the socks. Where do you live. I am sitting here with two pairs on. It is getting cool over here. (And I don't care that Gudrun *****es about the amount of laundry, it is just one of those points in respect to which I don't agree with Einstein).

"The genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation" is not complete. The Publisher refused to print volume 3, never sold volume 2 (of which 5000 were printed and of which I have only ever got one single copy) except on the day when it was released and never advertised volume one beyond his own nursery. 
Please don't ask me to go into the details on the forum. 

And Heather, being anal about something is always better than being nothing about something. 

Guido




Heather said:


> Yes, that would be the one I don't have.
> who needs socks anyway?
> 
> However, I brought _The Genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation, Vol. 1_ to work with me this morning and saw the same on p. 156.
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Heather, I am working on the name. It gotta be something that we can "Standardise"

And no, "type" and "variety" should (in my opinion) not be interchanged as they both have a specific meaning in taxonomy. That is another problem we have to solve: define all the terms in a sense as to rule out any possibility of getting confused.

Do you realise we are in for 20 years or work? Oh ... what am I getting myself into? I will definitely not live to see the end of it.

I believe Sandy Ohlund is lurking. Sandy, I need your help! (I know, nothing new).

Guido




Heather said:


> One thing I am a bit confused about is the difference between 'type' and 'variety'. Is there a difference or are those two terms interchangeable? Is it true then that _Paph. palawense_ should be referred to as _Paph. philippinense var. palawense_? On p. 151, the photo caption reads "type" (I love that plant by the way!) but on p. 154 under the aureum variety of _Paph. philippinense_, the photo caption reads _"Paph. philippinense var."_


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 19, 2006)

Yes, Sandy. Come out, come out, wherever you are...

Guido, I'm really happy to see your posts here.


----------



## Heather (Nov 19, 2006)

Braem said:


> Heather,
> 
> "The genus Paphiopedilum, Natural History and Cultivation" is not complete.



Then it is an extra good thing that I only grow the multiflorals, isn't it? Thank goodness they went into Volume 1! :evil: 

Guido, 
I am in New England, where we are continuing to have relatively warm temperatures for the season. I was really joking about the socks - my favorite socks are 'Smartwool' socks. I'm really anal about the type of socks I wear too. Generally if it is a question of buying things related to orchids, clothes, or food, I will choose Orchids. Linda's site has been bookmarked.


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

*Work*

Dot,

She is in Rolling Prairy, Indiana

Heather,

The name for the new tread I propose is *CTP* standing for

*Codex taxinomiae plantarum* (we could put that in brackets or _vice versa)_

That makes it pretty "serious" and protects that name for us. I have chosen "plantarum" because that would allow to include "Horticulture" (hybrids etc). and "taxinomiae" is correct, not a typo.

All people involved should know and acknowledge, that this is a very serious business.

Guido






SlipperFan said:


> Yes, Sandy. Come out, come out, wherever you are...
> 
> Guido, I'm really happy to see your posts here.


----------



## Heather (Nov 19, 2006)

Braem said:


> The name for the new tread I propose is *CTP* standing for
> 
> *Codex taxinomiae plantarum* (we could put that in brackets or _vice versa)_
> 
> ...



The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

*New Forum*

By the way, all people who want to join us should know that we are not going to make but friends doing this.

Guido




Heather said:


> I've just subdivided our Culture and Taxonomy forum into two. I can make a child forum in the Taxonomy forum to provide a place to discuss this idea further. Any suggestions for a title?


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

OK ..

Will do ... Give me time to take a good dose of cyanide first.

Guido






Heather said:


> The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Heather, please contact me off forum on this.

Guido



Heather said:


> The sub-forum has been created but now I need a description - just a short sentence that describes its nature?


----------



## Wendy (Nov 19, 2006)

Thank you for your answer . I suspected that it was a hybrid.

Also thank you for starting this thread...very interesting.


----------



## John M (Nov 19, 2006)

Dr. Braem, This is a WONDERFUL thread! Thank you for creating it and spending so much time monitoring and responding to it. I just found your thread today and couldn't stop reading until I'd consumed all 8 pages! It is wonderful to have you and Olaf in our midst, sharing your knowledge so freely. Thank you!


Quoted by Paphjoint:


> Mr Braem,
> 
> No reason to calm down your posts does not really excite me,
> 
> ...



PAPHJOINT, for crying out loud. SMARTEN UP!


----------



## littlefrog (Nov 20, 2006)

I don't think Sandy is lurking here... But next time I see her I'll give her a poke.

Rob


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

*Littlefrog*

Dear Rob,

greetings

I know she signed on

Guido

PS. Why "littlefrog"



littlefrog said:


> I don't think Sandy is lurking here... But next time I see her I'll give her a poke.
> 
> Rob


----------



## littlefrog (Nov 20, 2006)

Littlefrog? The night before my daughter was born I found a little tree frog on the kitchen counter (not before and not since as far as I know). Was looking for a nursery name at the time, and that one stuck. It is distinctive, if nothing else.


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

Wendy,

By the way. The identity of_ Phrag._ Simon Marcotte is not secured either. The person who registered the hybrid did not make the hybrid and some information I got indicates that he did not know the parents. Thus, it would have been a wild guess to register it as _"ecuadorense x_ Nitidissimum".
And that is one of our problems. How could one make sure that those things don't happen.

Guido





Wendy said:


> What about Phrag tetzlaffianum? In your opinion is it a species or a hybrid? I have heard that it may be in fact Phrag Simon Marcotte (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum). I have both plant but to date have only bloomed the tetzlaffianum and have been unable to compare.


----------



## Wendy (Nov 20, 2006)

The person who registered Phrag Simon Marcotte and had it awarded is a friend of mine and also posts on this forum. Hopefully he will post in this thread.

There is so much to learn....thank you!


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> Wendy,
> 
> By the way. The identity of_ Phrag._ Simon Marcotte is not secured either. The person who registered the hybrid did not make the hybrid and some information I got indicates that he did not know the parents. Thus, it would have been a wild guess to register it as _"ecuadorense x_ Nitidissimum".
> And that is one of our problems. How could one make sure that those things don't happen.
> ...



I don't think there is any way to avoid this kind of problem. Relying on the honor system will always produce "errors" within the information.


----------



## Wendy (Nov 20, 2006)

My friend bought the plant off of a society sales table and it was labeled as (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum) at the time of purchase. He had nothing to do with what was on the label. When it was awarded he had to name the cross before the award became official.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Wendy said:


> My friend bought the plant off of a society sales table and it was labeled as (ecuadorense x Nitidissimum) at the time of purchase. He had nothing to do with what was on the label. When it was awarded he had to name the cross before the award became official.



There is nothing more he could do other than trust what the label said. It would even be a worse situation if he had disregarded the label info and tried to second guess a different set of parents.


----------



## Heather (Nov 20, 2006)

littlefrog said:


> Littlefrog? The night before my daughter was born I found a little tree frog on the kitchen counter (not before and not since as far as I know). Was looking for a nursery name at the time, and that one stuck. It is distinctive, if nothing else.




Dr. Rob....I am wondering what you will find on your kitchen counter this time! Hopefully nothing too crazy.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Sandy is a member here as Sandy O.


----------



## littlefrog (Nov 20, 2006)

Heather said:


> Dr. Rob....I am wondering what you will find on your kitchen counter this time! Hopefully nothing too crazy.
> 
> Oh, and I'm pretty sure Sandy is a member here as Sandy O.



I'm kind of hoping for a pile of gold bricks... Or maybe a Dendrobates fantasticus pair. If that is going to show up, it better be soon!


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

Yes, that would be great. It would really be great to hear his side of the story.

Guido




Wendy said:


> The person who registered Phrag Simon Marcotte and had it awarded is a friend of mine and also posts on this forum. Hopefully he will post in this thread.
> 
> There is so much to learn....thank you!


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

Lance,

I beg to differ. He should not have registered a hybrid without being certain what the parents are. In fact, in my opinion, he misused the hybrid registration system. Unfortunately this happens very much. 

And no, the situation would not have been worse if he had disregarded the information on the label. 

Guido




gonewild said:


> There is nothing more he could do other than trust what the label said. It would even be a worse situation if he had disregarded the label info and tried to second guess a different set of parents.


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

This has nothing to do with honour systems of any kind. If you don't know what the hybrid is, don't register it. And I don't think that the RHS will be very happy when reading this tread.


Guido




gonewild said:


> I don't think there is any way to avoid this kind of problem. Relying on the honor system will always produce "errors" within the information.


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

That is what I figured out, and she told me in an email yesterday that she has registered. I hope we can convince her to come in. Rob, you may have to go and talk to her over a glas of Beringer (You know the way from O'Hare  and I wish I could join).

Guido



Heather said:


> Oh, and I'm pretty sure Sandy is a member here as Sandy O.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> Lance,
> 
> I beg to differ. He should not have registered a hybrid without being certain what the parents are. In fact, in my opinion, he misused the hybrid registration system. Unfortunately this happens very much.
> 
> ...



Guido,

I don't think we differ in our opinions. But I think we view the situation here differently.

I completely agree if he was not certain of the parents he should not have registered the hybrid. But why should he have known to disregard the label? Did he have reason to believe the label was incorrect?

Inventing (or guessing at) the parents because there was no label would have been a misuse of the registration system. Using the label information in not misuse of the system. On the contrary it is how the system is designed. You can't have persons second guessing what is recorded on a label and making the lineage conform as to what they think it might be. That is unless the person doing the "guessing" is an expert and can determine without doubt the correct lineage of the hybrid. There are few people qualified to perform a task as this. I imagine you are quite qualified for this but I doubt you have the time to review all the hybrids that need be registered by horticulturists.

The situation would have been worse had he disregarded the label information. Had he used his best judgment as to the parents and registered it that way would have been a misuse of the registration system. At least with the labeled parents recorded in the registration someone in the future has a chance at searching back to find the error.

Of course we are in agreement if there was doubt about the label accuracy the hybrid should not have been registered.

Horticulturaly speaking the possible error of the mis-registered hybrid is of little consequence. Two species crossed and given a name is OK for any offspring resulting from future crosses between the two specie. Where the misuse of the system would come into play is if the "clone" in question is used for breeding under the suspect name. 

So is the problem here with a misuse of the registration system or simply a single mislabeled clone?


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> This has nothing to do with honour systems of any kind. If you don't know what the hybrid is, don't register it. And I don't think that the RHS will be very happy when reading this tread.
> 
> 
> Guido



I think what you said above is the honor system. Is it not?

I don't understand why the RHS will be unhappy about reading this thread. Please elaborate, I'm interested in your opinion.


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

Lance,

OK, I will go along with that. 

Guido



gonewild said:


> Guido,
> 
> I don't think we differ in our opinions. But I think we view the situation here differently.
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

Well, because, they must realise that (no matter who is at fault here) the registration system is a problem. If you can register any hybrid without proof of correctness in respect to the parents ... you can register just about anything. All you have to do is figure out the combinations that have not been registered yet. :evil: 

Guido




gonewild said:


> I think what you said above is the honor system. Is it not?
> 
> I don't understand why the RHS will be unhappy about reading this thread. Please elaborate, I'm interested in your opinion.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> Well, because, they must realise that (no matter who is at fault here) the registration system is a problem. If you can register any hybrid without proof of correctness in respect to the parents ... you can register just about anything. All you have to do is figure out the combinations that have not been registered yet. :evil:
> 
> Guido



You mean they never thought of that? :rollhappy: Figures.

The only solution would be to *not* allow the hybridizer to choose the hybrid name and keep the naming to taxonomical standards. The horticulturists could choose clonal names for individual clones within a hybrid grex. 

Of course this would take a lot of sport and fun out of hybridizing. It would also make for a lot of boring commercial sales names for the horticultural industry. It also would not solve the problem of hybridizing with mislabeled plants.


----------



## Braem (Nov 21, 2006)

Lance,

That is not what I mean. The name itself does not matter. I have no problem with Phrag KittyKat or Phrag Lance's Delight. What they need to do (in my opinion) is develop some rules by which they can check whether the parentage given is correct. How they would do that, I ignore at this point in time. I don't know whether someone from the RHS is on this forum who could comment. 
No-one wants to take the fun out of hybridizing. And you have pointed at the real problem: hybridizing with mislabeled plants. That is what we must rule out as much as possible. Or passing on erronerous information.

Guido




gonewild said:


> You mean they never thought of that? :rollhappy: Figures.
> 
> The only solution would be to *not* allow the hybridizer to choose the hybrid name and keep the naming to taxonomical standards. The horticulturists could choose clonal names for individual clones within a hybrid grex.
> 
> Of course this would take a lot of sport and fun out of hybridizing. It would also make for a lot of boring commercial sales names for the horticultural industry. It also would not solve the problem of hybridizing with mislabeled plants.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 21, 2006)

I'm back on-line -- my cable connection was down for awhile. This is a great thread.

I am of the understanding that if I get a plant awarded that doesn't have a name, before I can name it, I must try to locate the hybridizer and ask them if they want to name the plant. If I can't locate the hybridizer, then after a certain period of time, I can submit a name. The same is true if I make a hybrid from parent(s) that are unnamed. Before I can name my hybrid, I must try to locate the hybridizer of the parent(s). This has happened with us more than once at Porter's Orchids. I wonder if this procedure was followed with the plant you are talking about.

I do hope Sandy weighs in. I contacted her a couple of weeks ago when this thread was getting going. She hadn't heard of SlipperTalk at that point, but she does now.

So, come on, Sandy...


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

Dot,

I don't think that one should make life for himself that easy. If you register a hybrid without knowing what the hybrid is, you block the registration of a really true hybrid of the parents. If you register AY as being A x Y, but your "A" is not "A", anyone who does make a real AY is cheated.

If you make a P. Hanne Popow _(besseae x schlimii)_ with "P. schlimii Wilcox" you will get one with big flowers and that will be compared with the real ones that have small flowers. Now, what is going to happen at Judging??

And that is the problem. I don't care how many hybrids you people want to register, I wish all of you zillions of awards, but you are cheeting everyone if the plant you enter is not the real thing. No matter whether you did it in good faith or not.

So what I am saying is very simple. Hybrid registration should be done only by those that made the hybrid. And the past "events" show that such restricted procedure would leave enough room for trouble.

Guido





SlipperFan said:


> I'm back on-line -- my cable connection was down for awhile. This is a great thread.
> 
> I am of the understanding that if I get a plant awarded that doesn't have a name, before I can name it, I must try to locate the hybridizer and ask them if they want to name the plant. If I can't locate the hybridizer, then after a certain period of time, I can submit a name. The same is true if I make a hybrid from parent(s) that are unnamed. Before I can name my hybrid, I must try to locate the hybridizer of the parent(s). This has happened with us more than once at Porter's Orchids. I wonder if this procedure was followed with the plant you are talking about.
> 
> ...


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 22, 2006)

Braem said:


> So what I am saying is very simple. Hybrid registration should be done only by those that made the hybrid. And the past "events" show that such restricted procedure would leave enough room for trouble.
> 
> Guido


That's why I said that we had to try to contact the original hybridizers to see if they wanted to name it. In my own personal case, the hybridizer had died, and no one in his estate would respond. It took 6 months of trying to find someone, including internet and orchid documentation research, emails, phone calls and letters.


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

OK Dot,

but then my opinion on this is: don't register the hybrid. If that means you don't get the award ... tough luck.

Guido






SlipperFan said:


> That's why I said that we had to try to contact the original hybridizers to see if they wanted to name it. In my own personal case, the hybridizer had died, and no one in his estate would respond. It took 6 months of trying to find someone, including internet and orchid documentation research, emails, phone calls and letters.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 22, 2006)

I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 22, 2006)

Braem said:


> OK Dot,
> 
> but then my opinion on this is: don't register the hybrid. If that means you don't get the award ... tough luck.
> 
> Guido



Guido,

I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations. 
A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period. 
Zero tolerance.

Now Guido here is how zero tolerance works...
If you did not discover the specie in the wild.. Don't describe it. If you did not find it... tough luck.

Both scenarios have a merit. Not knowing 100% positive the parents of a hybrid is no different than not knowing for sure the real collection point of a wild plant. When someone sends you a specimen they claim was collected in the wild how do you, the taxonomist, know with 100% certainty it is truly from a wild plant that is indeed truly not a hybrid, either mane made or natural?

By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 22, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.



Or a new specie found by someone else.


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 22, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Guido,
> 
> I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
> A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
> ...



I sort of like this scenario....:evil: ....We would have a bunch of unnamed species and hybrids. If you think the present problems are a mess, no names is even worse.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 22, 2006)

gonewild said:


> I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
> A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
> Zero tolerance....
> ...By the way, I do not believe in zero tolerance, but I think it makes a good example in this discussion.


The only way this would work is if anyone who made a hybrid is *required* to name and register it. That would take care of this problem, because unnamed hybrids are legion!


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I don't think I can agree with that because in this example no one would name the hybrid.



What hybrid? You don't know what it is. It can be anything. It is irresponsible to register a hybrid if you cannot be sure what the parents are. 
That is one of the main problems in orchid horticulture. That is why 70 or more % of the hybrids are not what they are labeled at.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

Now you are comparing apples with pears.

A new species IS unknown. Therfore, if one has established that the species is unknown, you describe it. And as it is unknown, there is no mistake. And it does not matter where you got it from. The collection point of the species has nothing to do with the identity of the species.

And yes, it is a problem to know whether the plant brought into our office comes from the wild. Sometimes it is easy to recognise (that is what true taxonomists have been trained for), sometimes it is difficult. And one must know who brings the plant. In my 30 years of doing this, my judgement on this was _possibly_ wrong once. 

And I have refused to describe quite a few plants. 

Guido

PS. And why do you talk about "specie", the terminology is "species".



gonewild said:


> Guido,
> 
> I agree this is what is needed with plant name registrations.
> A firm hand. If you did not make the hybrid don't register it. Period.
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

Yes,

that would be a step forward. And why should he/she not want to do it?

Guido



SlipperFan said:


> The only way this would work is if anyone who made a hybrid is *required* to name and register it. That would take care of this problem, because unnamed hybrids are legion!


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Or a new specie found by someone else.



Again, that is a completely different construction site. In species there are no parents to be mistaken. The plant is new to science. You cannot compare this with a hybrid.

Guido


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Now you are comparing apples with pears.



I like pear-apples, or apple-pears, or Asian pears, whichever name you prefer to call them by. 

But I think I'm comparing apples to apples. Just as you say a new species is unknown the person with the new hybrid says the same about the new plant they are dealing with.



> A new species IS unknown. Therfore, if one has established that the species is unknown, you describe it. And as it is unknown, there is no mistake. And it does not matter where you got it from. The collection point of the species has nothing to do with the identity of the species.



But where and how the plant exists in nature should have everything to do with how you determine if it is a new species. You should know the plant is actually part of a reproducing population in the wild. Unless you know for certain the plant exists as a population in the wild how are you to be certain it is not a natural hybrid or worse yet a man made hybrid?



> And yes, it is a problem to know whether the plant brought into our office comes from the wild. Sometimes it is easy to recognise (that is what true taxonomists have been trained for), sometimes it is difficult. And one must know who brings the plant. In my 30 years of doing this, my judgement on this was _possibly_ wrong once.



That is a remarkable record! I'm sure you must have a colleague or two out there that would disagree with your claim? But the issue is not whether the plant was growing in the wild, the point is whether it is actually a new species from a wild population or a hybrid that was growing in or near the wild. Or a garden grown hybrid someone filled his research quota with.



> And I have refused to describe quite a few plants.



I am curious, when you refuse to describe a plant does another taxonomist then step in a describe the species?



> Guido
> 
> PS. And why do you talk about "specie", the terminology is "species".



Well, because my spell checker does not know the difference and likes to drop the s and I did not catch the error. I'll have to have a chat with that fellow under the "ABC"


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Yes,
> 
> that would be a step forward. And why should he/she not want to do it?
> 
> Guido



I believe Dot said in her case the hybridizer was dead.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Again, that is a completely different construction site. In species there are no parents to be mistaken. The plant is new to science. You cannot compare this with a hybrid.
> 
> Guido



Unless the "wild" plant in question is in fact a hybrid or genetic sport and only exists as a single individual in the wild.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> What hybrid? You don't know what it is. It can be anything. It is irresponsible to register a hybrid if you cannot be sure what the parents are.
> That is one of the main problems in orchid horticulture. That is why 70 or more % of the hybrids are not what they are labeled at.
> 
> Guido



But the registration of a hybrid has nothing to do with what is written on the label of a plant. The registration of a hybrid is merely a permanent name assigned to the combination of two other plants. The name is used by every future cross for the same two "named plants", it is not exclusive to the original seed pod. 

In the grand scope of things it matters not who gives the name. So the registered name "Simon Marcotle" is correct for (ecuadorense x Nitidissium). Now quite possibly the person registering the hybrid does not actually own a plant of "Simon Marcotle" and if so should unlabel it. But we are talking about one clone. Now if someone in the future makes the cross between (ecuadorense x Nitidissium) it will already be registered as "Simon Marcotle". No harm done as far as registration is concerned, except someone falsely got credit for being the first to make the cross.

In the case of the above scenario I don't see the harm done to the "registration system".

If in fact 70% or more of the named orchid hybrids are incorrectly labeled then there is no point in trying to figure out a better method. It is beyond repair.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Guido,

This is your thread, without going back and re-reading all 12 pages I'm not sure we are still on the subject you intended to follow. (Although I think it is a good discussion). Please redirect the focus if you feel we are straying off topic.


----------



## Heather (Nov 23, 2006)

With regards to 'specie' vs. 'species', I've seen if often referred to as 'specie', generally by Europeans. Is this just a case of differences in spelling, i.e. 'colour' vs. 'color'?


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Heather said:


> With regards to 'specie' vs. 'species', I've seen if often referred to as 'specie', generally by Europeans. Is this just a case of differences in spelling, i.e. 'colour' vs. 'color'?



Got me! In the past I always wrote "species". I see it used both ways on the Internet and the spell checker suggested "specie" so I let it change it. I figured it was another word (name  ) change. Looking it up in the dictionary shows specie is coin money!
I'll differ to Guido's expertise and use "species".


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

gonewild said:


> But where and how the plant exists in nature should have everything to do with how you determine if it is a new species. You should know the plant is actually part of a reproducing population in the wild. Unless you know for certain the plant exists as a population in the wild how are you to be certain it is not a natural hybrid or worse yet a man made hybrid?
> 
> 
> gonewild said:
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

gonewild said:


> I believe Dot said in her case the hybridizer was dead.



Yes, and that is why I said, tough ... . You just can't register a hybrid if you don't know the correct parentage.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Unless the "wild" plant in question is in fact a hybrid or genetic sport and only exists as a single individual in the wild.



Lance, that you will have to explain to me, I am afraid

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

gonewild said:


> But the registration of a hybrid has nothing to do with what is written on the label of a plant. The registration of a hybrid is merely a permanent name assigned to the combination of two other plants. The name is used by every future cross for the same two "named plants", it is not exclusive to the original seed pod.



Oh Lord, yes, But if you claim that P. Hanne Popow is besseae x schlimii, and it is not, then all the true besseae x schlimii are not Hanne Popow. 



gonewild said:


> In the grand scope of things it matters not who gives the name. So the registered name "Simon Marcotle" is correct for (ecuadorense x Nitidissium). Now quite possibly the person registering the hybrid does not actually own a plant of "Simon Marcotle" and if so should unlabel it. But we are talking about one clone. Now if someone in the future makes the cross between (ecuadorense x Nitidissium) it will already be registered as "Simon Marcotle". No harm done as far as registration is concerned, except someone falsely got credit for being the first to make the cross.



OK first of all it is fraud. Secondly, it is cheating the system as I am sure that the Orchid Registrar does not want anyone to register under false data. And thirdly, what happens when the "false Simon Marcotte" is used as a parent?



gonewild said:


> In the case of the above scenario I don't see the harm done to the "registration system".



Well, I beg to differ.



gonewild said:


> If in fact 70% or more of the named orchid hybrids are incorrectly labeled then there is no point in trying to figure out a better method. It is beyond repair.



Now here we agree in as far as the existing system is beyond repair. But there is a solution. Start all over with a new and better system. Now I don't know whether that is realistic, but that is a different story.
But what you are saying is: "Hey, they have been cheating all the time, so lets continue cheating." 

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

Lance, 

it is one of the questions I wanted to address as hybrid taxonomy is now part of the Code. 

But I think we have made it clear that there is a problem. And I am happy if some people stated to think about it. 

And there are many other problems. 

Guido



gonewild said:


> Guido,
> 
> This is your thread, without going back and re-reading all 12 pages I'm not sure we are still on the subject you intended to follow. (Although I think it is a good discussion). Please redirect the focus if you feel we are straying off topic.


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

Heather said:


> With regards to 'specie' vs. 'species', I've seen if often referred to as 'specie', generally by Europeans. Is this just a case of differences in spelling, i.e. 'colour' vs. 'color'?



Heather, 

no, it is just a mistake. There is no such word as "specie".

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Got me! In the past I always wrote "species". I see it used both ways on the Internet and the spell checker suggested "specie" so I let it change it. I figured it was another word (name  ) change. Looking it up in the dictionary shows specie is coin money!
> I'll differ to Guido's expertise and use "species".



Lance,

I stand corrected. thanks for pointing the "specie" out to me. 

Thus I will correct myself: In _*Botany*_ there s no such word as "specie".

Guido


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Yes, and that is why I said, tough ... . You just can't register a hybrid if you don't know the correct parentage.
> 
> Guido



I agree you should not register a hybrid unless you know the correct parentage. However, when the plant is labeled you may in good conscience assume the parentage is correct. Just because a person dies is no reason to ignore their hybrids and say they can't be registered by their heirs or other persons as allowed by the registration system. That would be a discredit and a loss.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Yes, and that is why I said, tough ... . You just can't register a hybrid if you don't know the correct parentage.
> 
> Guido



Actually, you can and it seems to be quite easy to do so. Change your word "can't" to "shouldn't" and we are in agreement.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> Oh Lord, yes, But if you claim that P. Hanne Popow is besseae x schlimii, and it is not, then all the true besseae x schlimii are not Hanne Popow.



NO! Only the offspring from the first incorrectly labeled besseae x schlimii are not Hanne Popow. Any future cross between besseae x schlimii is in fact Hanne Popow. 




> OK first of all it is fraud. Secondly, it is cheating the system as I am sure that the Orchid Registrar does not want anyone to register under false data. And thirdly, what happens when the "false Simon Marcotte" is used as a parent?



It is not really fraud unless it was done on purpose to deceive. It the case of registering a mislabeled hybrid it is extreme to call this fraud. The false Simon Marcotte should of course not be used for breeding. If it is used in breeding and clonal names of the crosses are kept on the labels the error could be traced back in the future if need be. Here is where the honor system must come into play. 




> Well, I beg to differ.



I'll have to check back on this as I can't see in the copied quote what you are differing with.




> Now here we agree in as far as the existing system is beyond repair. But there is a solution. Start all over with a new and better system. Now I don't know whether that is realistic, but that is a different story.
> But what you are saying is: "Hey, they have been cheating all the time, so lets continue cheating."
> 
> Guido



We can't start over. Too many labeled plants... people won't do it. A certain percentage of people will also cheat any new system.


----------



## John M (Nov 24, 2006)

*Okay, I've had enough of all this crap from Mr. Braem.

I will now weigh in on the subject of the registration of Phrag. Simon Marcotte to set the record straight and to show that Mr. Braem is talking a bunch of ignorant nonsense.*



> "By the way. The identity of Phrag. Simon Marcotte is not secured either. The person who registered the hybrid did not make the hybrid and some information I got indicates that he did not know the parents. Thus, it would have been a wild guess to register it as "ecuadorense x Nitidissimum".
> Guido" *[Unquote]*
> 
> *Mr. Braem,
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

gonewild said:


> I agree you should not register a hybrid unless you know the correct parentage. However, when the plant is labeled you may in good conscience assume the parentage is correct. Just because a person dies is no reason to ignore their hybrids and say they can't be registered by their heirs or other persons as allowed by the registration system. That would be a discredit and a loss.




Lance, I am fighting against windmills, and I am afraid that you are one of them. 
You should not register a hybrid if you are not sure about the parentage. STOP
IF you cannot find out about the parentage (for whatever reasons, including the passing away of the "creator"), you don't know the parentage and ergo you should not register the hybrid. END

You buy a lottery ticket. Your ticket wins, but you have lost your ticket. Do you get the money?

You go to the bank. You want a mortgage. They ask you: have you bought a house. You say yes. They say: where is it? You say, I have forgotten, do you get the mortgage?

Und that is really the end of this debate as far as I am concerned.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

Thank you John M for this post,

it shows all how right I am. You did nou know the parents. You did not care. You cheated the system by registering a hybrid which is not secured. And for me, you don't have any integrity to worry about.



John M said:


> Okay,
> Mr. Braem,
> I would like you to elaborate on your "information" indicating that I "did not know the parents". Where did you ever get that idea? Of course, I knew the parents! They were written on the label! I had no reason to disbelieve the label!



Lovely, you obviously don't understand that with that paragraph, you proved my point. Thank you.

End of debate.


----------



## Heather (Nov 24, 2006)

If the RHS does not disallow situations such as John's (the fact that he wrote, explained the situation, and they allowed the registration to go forward) I do not see how the person wanting to name the cross is at fault here. I'd say the fault here is more on the RHS since they set and enforce the policies, not the hybridizer or person wishing to register it. 

_* I will now remind everyone of rule #5 of the forum. Please keep things civil...be nice!*_
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19998#post19998


----------



## bench72 (Nov 24, 2006)

ok, Dummy here again, trying to make light of this discussion...

1. I cannot register a hybrid if I didn't make the cross because I am not certain of the parents. So I'll make the cross!

2. But, one of the parents is a hybrid, so I need to also know that the parents of that hybrid is legitimate. So, I have to do the hybridizing there just to make sure.

3. Gosh, I've just noticed that Paphiopedilum Winston Churchill has about five generations in that family tree, so I really need to know all those parents as well... I'm glad I'm young enough to do all these hyrbidising.

4. Oh but wait, just because I am down to the species level, how do I know that I actually have that species, after all, I'm not a taxonomist!

5. Well, I guess the only people who can name hybrids will be taxonomists!


----------



## John M (Nov 24, 2006)

> "You did nou know the parents." *[Unquote]*
> *I knew the parents as well as anyone could be reasonably expected to know them.*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## John M (Nov 24, 2006)

> "I will now remind everyone of rule #5 of the forum. Please keep things civil...be nice!" *[Unquote]*
> 
> Heather, of course you are correct. That is why it took me so long to post. I wrote a reply to Dr. Braems' accusations and then spent the next few days editing out the inappropriate stuff. What I posted was the nicest and most civil version that I could come up with; considering the unjust bashing that I'd suffered from Mr. Braem.


----------



## John M (Nov 24, 2006)

Gotta go and water now. All my (apparently) bastard, nameless plants (even though they do have tags), are thirsty.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 24, 2006)

Braem said:


> Lance, I am fighting against windmills, and I am afraid that you are one of them.Guido



Before I write any further in this thread I would like to know if I have just been insulted?


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

Heather,

I fully agree that part of the fault is to be given to the RHS. However, I still maintain that John M should not have registered the hybrid. And I still maintain that registering a hybrid without knowing the parentage is cheating on the system and dishonest towards the RHS and the orchid community.

It is not because someone leaves a door open that you have to go in.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Before I write any further in this thread I would like to know if I have just been insulted?



NO. I just said that I fought against something that I can't fight against. We obviously have different opinions about the issue, but that is OK.

Guido


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 24, 2006)

bench72 said:


> ok, Dummy here again, trying to make light of this discussion...
> 
> 1. I cannot register a hybrid if I didn't make the cross because I am not certain of the parents. So I'll make the cross!
> 
> ...


You are no dummy. Unless I am, also. You wrote down what I was thnking. 

Sometimes what is written on tags seems obviously wrong. But when the flower matches what is written on the tag, even if I didn't make the cross, why should I not trust it. If I cannot trust the name one the tag, what's the point of having one? I may as well have purchased that gorgeous Cat. I saw in a Meijer store tonight -- large healthy plant with flowers of bright clear yellow and the brightest cleanest orange lip I've ever seen. But no tag.:sob:


----------



## John M (Nov 24, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> You are no dummy. Unless I am, also. You wrote down what I was thnking.
> 
> Sometimes what is written on tags seems obviously wrong. But when the flower matches what is written on the tag, even if I didn't make the cross, why should I not trust it. If I cannot trust the name one the tag, what's the point of having one? I may as well have purchased that gorgeous Cat. I saw in a Meijer store tonight -- large healthy plant with flowers of bright clear yellow and the brightest cleanest orange lip I've ever seen. But no tag.:sob:



That's okay Dot. Go back and pick up that plant tomorrow. I'm sure that if you send Mr. Braem even just a single photo, he'll be able to tell you exactly what it is. Heck, he'll even be able to tell you what the hybridizer had for lunch on the day that he did the cross pollination.:evil: :rollhappy:


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Quite mistaken Mr. Marcotte, even I can't tell the parents of a hybrid, and I am not so arrogant to claim that I do. And I also do not cheat the orchid world by registering fraud hybrids.

However, what I will be able to say is that if any plant comes from you, it would be better just to trash it.

And by the way, thank you for your posts: You have adequately proven all my points, and now I know that you are not only a entirely dishonest person but also lack any manners or education.

Sincerely Yours
Guido J. Braem





John M said:


> That's okay Dot. Go back and pick up that plant tomorrow. I'm sure that if you send Mr. Braem even just a single photo, he'll be able to tell you exactly what it is. Heck, he'll even be able to tell you what the hybridizer had for lunch on the day that he did the cross pollination.:evil: :rollhappy:


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

No, there is notting about dummies here:

as I said, if you simple start over with secured materials, and you stop hybridizing with old material that you cannot identify. And that of course becomes more difficult with any generation you add.

That is all. But if you can't let go from the old, you are just perpetuating mistakes. 

And this has nothing to do with being a taxonomist or not. It has to do with personal and professional integrity or the lack thereof.

Guido J. Braem




> 3. Gosh, I've just noticed that Paphiopedilum Winston Churchill has about five generations in that family tree, so I really need to know all those parents as well... I'm glad I'm young enough to do all these hyrbidising.
> 
> 4. Oh but wait, just because I am down to the species level, how do I know that I actually have that species, after all, I'm not a taxonomist!
> 
> 5. Well, I guess the only people who can name hybrids will be taxonomists!


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> if you simple(sic) start over with secured materials



Dr Braem,

How do people ensure that they have 'secured' material?


----------



## lienluu (Nov 25, 2006)

Hello all,

I think this thread has gotten completely off topic, in the wrong way. Please refrain from further character judgements and let's try to keep this thread on topic--orchid taxonomy. We're not trying to classify people here...

Lien
Forum admin.


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Now that is the _casus cnactus:_ [and no, this is nothing immoral, illegal or insulting]

1) Do not breed with old material. Start all over. [Unless it is possible to identify the old material in a full-proof process by independent people, but then, I do not know any full-proof process of identifying a hybrid. When I am asked about a hybrid [and that happens quite often] my answer will always be: "I suspect the influence of that and that species" and I will never go beyond the term "suspect".]

2) When you start all over, have your species identified by at least two independent taxonomists, and if there is disagreement have them explain and put in your records [identified by .... and ....], keep a picture of the plant and flower, etc. 

3) Put in a secure hybridizing registration system. Enforce strict sanctions against greedy people that register just for the sake of getting an award. If someone gets caught cheating, he/she is banned from any registration, any awards etc. 

4) Change the award system to make sure that only properly identified plants get awarded (now that is already more or less done with the species), but it also needs to be done with the hybrids. 

Sorry I can't tell you any better right now. And I know most of the growers will not like the medicine. But IF you want a clean system, you will have to take it. And I do realise that it will need a "concerted efford" between Growers, RHS and societies, taxonomists.

Do I see this happen? If you ask me to be honest: NO. But I would love to stand corrected.

Guido



bench72 said:


> Dr Braem,
> 
> How do people ensure that they have 'secured' material?


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

braem said:


> 1) Do not breed with old material. Start all over.



ok, cool, start all over again...

I have all my species, and have confirmed their identity with at least two taxonomists.

I breed the two species and I the plant grows and is in flower, so I register the hybrid. I put this hybrid name tag in the pot of my orchid.

I repeat the breeding process, ie my hybrid onto the confirmed species. I register that and I put a tag in the pot.

Is this still all ok? If so, then I'll keep going with scenario...

gosh, I realise that I'm not getting any younger and those complex hybrids I want to get to is quite a few generations...

so, I need to keep hybridising my plants which have been hybridised from my original confirmed species... 

oh, it's Xmas... "Merry Xmas Billy, here's a seedling of my latest hybridising attempt." Tag says_Orchidaceae maybe_ x _Orchidaceae possibly_

but the following week, my bungee rope snaps (I like to live with danger)...

Can Billy name the hybrid in honour of me? And how can Billy know for sure that what I gave him is what the name tag says?

How many generations of hybridising can we do as humans before we keep keeling over? Will we ever get to the Winston Churchill's again?


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

I love it. You have grasped what kind of problems there are.

Guido




bench72 said:


> ok, cool, start all over again...
> 
> I have all my species, and have confirmed their identity with at least two taxonomists.
> 
> ...


----------



## John M (Nov 25, 2006)

My last word:

Here's some good advice for you, Mr. Braem. "It is better to be thought of as a fool, than to open ones' mouth and remove all doubt."

....And for everyone else on this forum:

"He who debates with a fool, is himself, a fool." 

So, continue to engage in this and any other debate with Mr. Braem at your peril.

Good bye.


----------



## Heather (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> NO. I just said that I fought against something that I can't fight against. We obviously have different opinions about the issue, but that is OK.
> 
> Guido




I think this is the crux of the biscuit. 

I would have liked it to be the case that we could *civily* debate these issues without causing insult to others. I would like us to be able to continue these debates, but from here on out I think we need to keep things generalized and refrain from using specific examples. 

*If we cannot keep this civil and without character insult between all involved, I will shut this forum down.*

I think it's time to start a new thread, if someone has a genuine taxonomy question. Let's let this one go for a while.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 25, 2006)

Heather said:


> I think this is the crux of the biscuit.
> 
> I would have liked it to be the case that we could *civily* debate these issues without causing insult to others. I would like us to be able to continue these debates, but from here on out I think we need to keep things generalized and refrain from using specific examples.
> 
> ...



Heather,

There is no need to shut this forum down, especially considering your basic platform for slippertalk. The "insults" here are very minor and the whole line of discussion is exactly what happens when you have a group of expert "scientists" (of which I am NOT one) get together and discuss what they are all experts on. There is nothing polite and civil about it. It is a bitter battle to become top dog. I know many persons of Guido's stature and have spent much time in Peru with taxonomists, researchers, curators, fieldworkers and just about any other level of scientist you can come up with. They all feel as though their knowledge is supreme because they have proof. If the truth were only known as to how flawed the field data they all use for proof is!

I know you asked to let this go for awhile, and I have not responded quickly to the comment you quoted above, because I wanted to think about it.
I asked if I had been insulted because I was not sure, not because I felt hurt or insulted by Guido's comment. I really did not know what being part of a windmill meant and I wanted to understand his thinking. I accept that he meant no personal insult. In fact I take it as a complement now. A windmill is a source of strong powerful energy that is free. (I doubt that is what Guido was thinking).

I do not believe for a second that Guido has damaged the reputation of JohnM by bringing his opinions to light. I did not know who registered the Phrag in question and I refereed to it merely because it was used as an example by people involved with it in this forum. If you read back through my posts you will see that my argument (discussion) with Guido was in fact that I assumed facts based on the info published in front of us. That is, that the plant was labeled and the person registering it had every moral right to use the labeled parents for the registration. I as an uninvolved person did not question the reputation of the person Guido accused of fraud and in fact pointed out that there was no fraud or wrong doing. Guido has an opinion and he seems to like to use strong adjectives to try to elevate his position. As I said above this is normal for his profession. JohnM stepped forward and identified himself publicly as the person in question. I applaud him for defending himself publicly. His statements prove without doubt he did not abuse the registration process. JohnM choose freely to comment here.

Now although the content of the conversation of this forum has become too personal and should be kept to "theory" I do feel there is a lot of good points being brought to light. I think we should continue this discussion and keep this forum available as reference. 

I suggest for the good of slippertalk, Do not censor or delete this forum and most of all do not threaten to do so if people write what they feel. 

This is the place to become informed about people that control our interests. Because of this forum I have a chance to really know what Guido Braem is about. What he says here and how he says it will help determine his reputation for all of time. I now can have an opinion about Guido Braem's work.


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Lance,

you should read _Don Quichote. _Than you will understand. It is Don Quichote who is mad, not the windmill. And I am mad because I spend so much time trying to explain things and get called an idiot for it [actually I should have known that this was going to happen, so really only I am to blame]. And I am so sorry for all of you who do not want to understand that people like Marcotte turn the Orchid Registration System and the Award System into a farce.
You don't have to defend my style nor my language. It is just fine, maybe a bit rough to some, but it has shown a lot of people that I put a lot of value on personal and professional integrity. It has always been the same and always will be the same. If that is not accepted nor appreciated, I will have to seriously reconsider whether I am willing to devote my time to this forum. 

Guido


----------



## Mahon (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> Lance,
> 
> you should read _Don Quichote. _Than you will understand. It is Don Quichote who is mad, not the windmill. And I am mad because I spend so much time trying to explain things and get called an idiot for it [actually I should have known that this was going to happen, so really only I am to blame]. And I am so sorry for all of you who do not want to understand that people like Marcotte turn the Orchid Registration System and the Award System into a farce.
> You don't have to defend my style nor my language. It is just fine, maybe a bit rough to some, but it has shown a lot of people that I put a lot of value on personal and professional integrity. It has always been the same and always will be the same. If that is not accepted nor appreciated, I will have to seriously reconsider whether I am willing to devote my time to this forum.
> ...



I agree with Braem completely on everything he has posted. 

-Pat

PS: It is almost impossible to conjure a true impression of a person you know impersonally. For all I know, some of you may in fact be chimpanzees.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 25, 2006)

Now....to get back to a statement made by Dr. Braem earlier...to the effect that a species should have a naturally reproducing population in its habitat...an idea that has always made sense to me...Is there a population of Paph. viniferum out there? (the "Jac" strain of callosum/crossii)? How about platyphyllum (formerly stonei latifolium)? While I can see why Koopowitz could consider viniferum a separate species in regard to its characteristics as compared to callosum, as far as I know there are only 3 individual plants collected from the wild in that taxon...and I don't know of any other platyphyllum other than "Ruth Kennedy". I have never heard of populations of these types...any info that I haven't heard yet? Thanks, Eric


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

Eric et alia,

_Paph. viniferum_ is a colour form of _Paph. crossii (callosum_ if you want). _Paph. platyphyllum _(formerly _Paph. stonei latifolium) _is a hybrid of origin to be compared to the origin of _Phrag. tetzlaffianum. _ 

I did include the latter in the book, because I was more or less convinced by the stories told me by two people, but that was a mistake. 

Guido




Eric Muehlbauer said:


> Now....to get back to a statement made by Dr. Braem earlier...to the effect that a species should have a naturally reproducing population in its habitat...an idea that has always made sense to me...Is there a population of Paph. viniferum out there? (the "Jac" strain of callosum/crossii)? How about platyphyllum (formerly stonei latifolium)? While I can see why Koopowitz could consider viniferum a separate species in regard to its characteristics as compared to callosum, as far as I know there are only 3 individual plants collected from the wild in that taxon...and I don't know of any other platyphyllum other than "Ruth Kennedy". I have never heard of populations of these types...any info that I haven't heard yet? Thanks, Eric


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Nov 28, 2006)

I know "Paph. intaniae" has never really been accepted as a good species, and I have no debate over that. I was wondering though what cross it is suspected of being.

Jon


----------



## Braem (Nov 29, 2006)

Jon, 

It is most probably a complex hybrid. I am not going to give names in this post, but the people the plant originates from is known to put hybrids out in the jungle (that is, the "greenhouses" of the family are so to speak in the jungle). It is impossible to clarify what the parents really are, but I have "speculated" at another occasion that _P. parishii _could be involved.

Guido




Jon in SW Ohio said:


> I know "Paph. intaniae" has never really been accepted as a good species, and I have no debate over that. I was wondering though what cross it is suspected of being.
> 
> Jon


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 10, 2011)

Is Dr Braem still a member of this forum? I couldn't see his name in the members list. Has he changed his username?
Mick


----------



## ORG (Apr 10, 2011)

Dear Mick,
I send Guido your question.
Perhaps he will answer.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 10, 2011)

ORG said:


> Dear Mick,
> I send Guido your question.
> Perhaps he will answer.
> 
> ...



Thankyou Olaf,

Olaf,
Do you have any recent information about Paph helenae forma delicatum? Are these plants in cultivation? Have you seen any pictures of the plants other than those that accompanied the description?

Regards and thanks, Mick


----------



## Heather (Apr 10, 2011)

Mick, 
Guido asked to have his account removed back in 2006 and we have not seen him since, though he is certainly welcome to register again if he likes!


----------



## ORG (Apr 10, 2011)

Dear Heather and Mick,
Guido answered and wrote that he would particpate agin when there is an interest for and when he would get an invitation for the participation.

I tried to translate his words correctly.

About Paph. helenae forma delicatum. I have no more information aboutt. I heard only that some plants came in trade in Europe but that these plants were no delicatum, only typical helenae.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 10, 2011)

I would love to see Guido back on this forum. (Please don't hate me for it, Uri....) Guido is no doubt a polarizing personality, but he really does know a lot, and if people could just hold back from encouraging his belligerent side, there is much to be learned from him.


----------



## Heather (Apr 11, 2011)

I have re-activated Dr. Braem's account at his request. Hopefully we'll be seeing him around here again soon.


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 11, 2011)

Heather said:


> I have re-activated Dr. Braem's account at his request. Hopefully we'll be seeing him around here again soon.



Good news.


----------



## valenzino (Apr 11, 2011)

I will be interested in opinions and information about the difference between Paph.violascens and Paph. bouganvillieanum.In my opinion,Paph.bouganvillieanum,even if is quite different,can be considered a variety of Paph.violascens.

Thanks


----------



## Braem (Apr 11, 2011)

You are not alone with that opinion, and Henry Oakeley and I also expressed that view in our recently published "Paphiopedilum species - The essential Guide". But that takes us back to one of the main problems of plant taxonomy ... how different do two entities have to be to be considered as two autonomous entities?


----------



## valenzino (Apr 11, 2011)

Thanks Dr.Braem,
I understand the problem,and I am not shure about what its best.
But I will try to group some species under varietal names to make more "intuitive" and easy this system that sometimes is tricky.Will also be easy for the peoples that are new to a group to try to understand the evolution of the plant in certain areas.(like for example,the barbigerum group that its really confusing).


----------



## Braem (Apr 11, 2011)

It all depends what side you are on. If you live off selling species, you would want it to be a separate species ... 
At the end of the day, the problem for a hobbyist is nonexistant. Whether you have the plant as P. bougainvilleanum or as P. violascens var. bougainvillenum or as P. violascens subspecies bougainvilleanum or as P. violascens forma bougainvilleanum ... does not change the plant. And that is the same for hookerae and volonteanum, and many other "complexes". The problem also is with the hybrids ... as various "varieties" will give quite distinct hybrids ... and that is a serious issue for hybrid taxonomy. Thus, the issue is far more complex than most people realize.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 11, 2011)

So Guido...what's your take on "viniferum"....a valid species or "just another callosum"?


----------



## Braem (Apr 12, 2011)

*viniferum*

let me put it this way: I have serious doubts whether that should be considered an autonomous species.


----------



## Pete (Apr 12, 2011)

thank you much for your commentary and opinions Guido


----------



## valenzino (Apr 12, 2011)

Thanks,yes hybrids taxonomy is extremely complicate,and getting worst,I understand.
What do you think about Paphiopedilum canhii?
In jannuary I was in Asia and had the luck to see one in flower.Its really something different.Do you think is correct to put it in barbata group or new group should be created for it?


----------



## Braem (Apr 13, 2011)

*Paph canhii*

When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity. 

Just a little comment about the naming: the species name is given by whoever publishes the species. Thus P. canhii MAY mean that Mr. Canh found the plant. Phrag. kovachii was not discovered ny M. kovach, and P. braemii was not discovered by me, etc. etc. Thus, to deduce facts from a name can be a bit tricky.


----------



## valenzino (Apr 13, 2011)

Thanks Dr. Braem,
When I first seen the photos I immediately thinked of a new genuine specie.There are photos of the plant in the wild.Mr Cahn also is posting them on this Forum or you can find them googling.I think is very interesting plant,someway primitive between parvisepalums and barbata types...but also have some characteristics of others and some unique to it....

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19039&highlight=canhii&page=4

About names,I will be more happy with a "descriptive" ones instead of nameing them with "human" names(less rage in nameing new plants,so less confusion,and more intuitive understanding of the topic,with easy memory access...)...but in reality i dont care a lot about why are like this....There are no name tags in the jungle  !!


----------



## Marc (Apr 13, 2011)

Braem said:


> When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity.



Dr. Braem, in the photography section there is a topic regarding canhii atm. I included a link in that thread which links to a japanese orchid society page. It shows photo's made during a presentation that included Paph. canhii.

There were in situ pics included in the presentation:

http://www.orchid.or.jp/orchid/society/paphio/saloon-62.htm

In that canhii topic on the forum here it was mentioned that it was presentation given by Dr. Tanaka.

I can't vouch for the reliability of the photo's or the info in general though.


----------



## Braem (Apr 13, 2011)

Thanks for the message ... I wonder why it is not included in the Kew list?


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 13, 2011)

Braem said:


> When I first saw a picture of P. canhii my thoughts went towards hybrids ... but I simply have too little information about the plant. Dr. Oakeley and I have chosen not to include it in "Paphiopedilum species - the essential Guide". If however, I ever see a picture of it growing in the wild, I will be more than happy to accept it as a natural entity.
> 
> Just a little comment about the naming: the species name is given by whoever publishes the species. Thus P. canhii MAY mean that Mr. Canh found the plant. Phrag. kovachii was not discovered ny M. kovach, and P. braemii was not discovered by me, etc. etc. Thus, to deduce facts from a name can be a bit tricky.


Dr. Braem
When I first saw a picture of P. canhii I thought it was a freak hybrid too. Although I haven't seen canhii in-situ, I have seen enough freshly collected plants in a remote location to now make me believe otherwise and Dr Tanaka's pictures certainly don't looked staged. 

Regards, Mick


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 13, 2011)

Braem said:


> Thanks for the message ... I wonder why it is not included in the Kew list?



Dr Braem,
It's on the Kew list.
*Paphiopedilum canhii Aver. & O.Gruss, Orchids (West Palm Beach) 79: 288 (2010).
This name is accepted. *

Regards, Mick


----------



## Braem (Apr 13, 2011)

Thank you ... so, we better include it in the next "edition" - I wonder wy Olaf did not knock on my fingers ;-)


----------



## ORG (Apr 13, 2011)

Dear Marc, Mick and Valenzino,
you can see that Toshinori Tanaka gave his talk on base of the published book 'Paphiopedilum in China' and on the base of articles, like the description of Paphiopedilum guangdongense and Paph. gratrisicianum var. cabangense.
I get the same pictures of Paphiopedilum canhii in situ like Toshi showed.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## ORG (Apr 13, 2011)

Dear Guido,
I have seen your publication too late.
So I could not knock on your fingers. 
I should do it also with _*Paph. parnatanum*_ in your booklet. Here a true example







Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Braem (Apr 13, 2011)

Servus Olaf,

Ok ... I owe you two beers. ;-)

Can you send me the canhii pictures?


----------



## quietaustralian (Apr 22, 2011)

ORG said:


> Dear Marc, Mick and Valenzino,
> you can see that Toshinori Tanaka gave his talk on base of the published book 'Paphiopedilum in China' and on the base of articles, like the description of Paphiopedilum guangdongense and Paph. gratrisicianum var. cabangense.
> I get the same pictures of Paphiopedilum canhii in situ like Toshi showed.
> 
> ...



Hello Olaf,

Where did Dr Tanaka get the pics of canhii in situ? Have they been published in a journal? 

Regards, Mick


----------



## ORG (Apr 22, 2011)

Dear Mick,
I cannot give you the correct answer. Iwill look to my other computer when I am at home from Japan next week.
I think I get the pictures directly from Vietnam and also similar from a page in the net

http://www.hoalanvietnam.org/hoidap.asp?NumRows=100&PageNo=3

There you must go down to number 214.

Best greetings

olaf


----------



## Pete (Apr 24, 2011)

nice parnatanum


----------

