# Again new Paph. species described.



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Apr 7, 2017)

Hi all,

Today I ran into an article with a very recently described new _Paphiopedilum _species from China that belongs to the subgenus _Paphiopedilum _section _Paphiopedilum_. It is called _Paph_. _notatisepalum_. The article was published 31-mar-2017 in Phytotaxa.

The article's abstract text:
"A new species of _Paphiopedilum _(Orchidaceae) from Yunnan, China, is described and illustrated based on morphological
and molecular evidence. Morphological comparisons indicate that the new species _P. notatisepalum _is highly similar to _P.
henryanum_, from which it differs by its leaves with large yellow spots, shorter scape, larger flower, ovate, white sepals and
petals that are pale purple-red with large purple spots and yellow-white margins. Molecular analyses of combined nuclear
and plastid datasets (nrITS and matK) indicate that _P. notatisepalum _is sister to _P. barbigerum_, which has a green leaves and
pale yellow-green sepals and petals. The morphological and molecular evidence support the hypothesis that _P. notatisepalum
_is a new species."

Rob.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 7, 2017)




----------



## TyroneGenade (Apr 7, 2017)

You can get the paper off of researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315727115_Paphiopedilum_notatisepalum_a_new_species_of_slipper_orchid_Cypripedioideae_Orchidaceae_from_China_based_on_morphological_and_DNA_evidence. Looks very pretty: pink henryanum type.

P.S. Ah! Lance, you beat me to the punch!


----------



## JAB (Apr 7, 2017)

Wow! Quite nice.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Apr 7, 2017)

The interesting question is how many of these new species will be accepted as valid - meaning by RHS, since they seem to be the final arbiters. Not that you have to agree...


----------



## SlipperFan (Apr 7, 2017)

... or a form of henryanum?


----------



## tenman (Apr 8, 2017)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> The interesting question is how many of these new species will be accepted as valid - meaning by RHS, since they seem to be the final arbiters. Not that you have to agree...



The RHS is not now, nor has it ever been, a taxonomic authority. It is a record-keeping functionary, that and nothing more. It has NO taxonomic authority.None.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Apr 8, 2017)

tenman said:


> The RHS is not now, nor has it ever been, a taxonomic authority. It is a record-keeping functionary, that and nothing more. It has NO taxonomic authority.None.



Indeed, but "everyone" seems to follow their lead.


----------



## myxodex (Apr 8, 2017)

SlipperFan said:


> ... or a form of henryanum?



Yes Dot, this is also my thinking, to me it looks like a "tiger stripe" henryanum. 

In neos the tiger stripe phenotype can include pigmentation effects not only in the leaves. If there is a conditional mutation that causes a defect in chlorophyll synthesis (or chloroplast function in general) under some conditions, then it could be responsible for the loss of green (and or some yellow) in the flowers as both yellow and green are chloroplast dependent pigments. So my guess would be that this is simply a mutant population of henryanum. If the mutation was chloroplast based (so in the chloroplast DNA) then all siblings from the same mutant pod parent would carry and express this mutation, making it more likely to get a colony of plants with the same phenotype. The phylogenetic analysis doesn't prove that barbigerum is the nearest relative, as the authors themselves admit. They need to use a more genetic data for this to hold up. So my guess is that it isn't a new species, but a form of henryanum in the same way an alba is.

If my guesswork holds up, and the mutation is chloroplast based, then this plant could make for interesting breeding possibilities with the pod parent always being dominant for this trait, possibly even in hybrids. Suppression of green in flowers makes the pinks cleaner.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 8, 2017)

Pretty. I wonder how molecular research shows it not to be a hybrid?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 8, 2017)

No one - no person, no institution - has taxonomic authority. Kew probably has as much influence as any entity for accepted orchid taxonomy - and RHS largely follows Kew, of course - and RHS is hugely influential in orchid horticultural usage because they are the designated arbiter of what is accepted for hybrid registration. But there is NO taxonomic authority, period.

When a description of a new taxon is published, whether forma or family or anything in between, it is a scientific hypothesis. Like any hypothesis, if it is well supported by facts that stand up with scrutiny over time, it may be seen as theory provisionally accepted as fact, but no one makes that decision. 

There are no firm criteria for when something should be considered a form or variety or species or subgenus, etc. Scientifically it is irrelevant exactly where those lines get drawn, and usually there is very little debate on the relationships. Everything is related by common descent, similarities are fairly obvious, just where do we draw the lines in the accepted trees. It partly depends on the established framework and may differ. A subgenus in Paphiopedilum may be roughly equivalent to a genus in the Laeliinae. Which is all just a long way of saying we tend to make too much of the question "Is it really a new species?" without having or understanding all the facts - because we never will have all the facts and at some point it is always a judgement where that line gets drawn.

Here we have something not quite like anything described before. Now we have a label and description to begin the discussion. Don't get your undies bunched up over the details.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Apr 9, 2017)

But I like bunched undies...


----------



## Linus_Cello (Apr 9, 2017)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> But I like bunched undies...



TMI


----------



## PaphMadMan (Apr 9, 2017)

Linus_Cello said:


> TMI



Agreed!


----------

