# New hybrid list - RHS



## li'l frog (Jul 17, 2007)

The New Orchid Hybrid List is now available on the RHS web page. It lists the first new hybrids from that new purple Phrag, and they are listed with their proper name, which pleases me very much. The RHS has chosen to list the plants as crosses with 'Phrag kovachii (peruvianum)'. For those who come later, and have not lived through all the angst, this will be a clue for them to research for themselves.

li'l frog


----------



## Candace (Jul 17, 2007)

Good for them! I personally think the accepted name for it should be peruvianum.


----------



## li'l frog (Jul 17, 2007)

That is why I am pleased; peruvianum should have had presedence; anything less rewards dishonor.


----------



## Candace (Jul 17, 2007)

You and I think alike:>


----------



## ORG (Jul 17, 2007)

Also when you prefer the name Phrag. peruvianum, please remember that there were around 20 years earlier plants under this name in trade. These Phragmipedium-plants were in truth the latser described Phrag. richteri, which was also in trade as Phrag. amazonica.
The name Phrag. peruvianum was in this time published in some announcements, so it would be not useful to use this name for another species - also when you don't like the name kovachii.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## gonewild (Jul 17, 2007)

ORG said:


> Also when you prefer the name Phrag. peruvianum, please remember that there were around 20 years earlier plants under this name in trade. These Phragmipedium-plants were in truth the latser described Phrag. richteri, which was also in trade as Phrag. amazonica.
> The name Phrag. peruvianum was in this time published in some announcements, so it would be not useful to use this name for another species - also when you don't like the name kovachii.
> 
> Best greetings
> ...



Olaf... So perhaps in reality the name peruvianum would not been accepted anyway because of this old conflict?


----------



## ohio-guy (Jul 17, 2007)

Perhaps some permurtaion of peruvianum would have been accepted, 
(Phrag peru? ) It seems rather egotistical to name a species plant after oneself, when one had rather little to do with its discovery.


----------



## Ron-NY (Jul 17, 2007)

ohio-guy said:


> Perhaps some permurtaion of peruvianum would have been accepted,
> (Phrag peru? ) It seems rather egotistical to name a species plant after oneself, when one had rather little to do with its discovery.


 That has been the norm throughout orchid collecting history. Just take a look at species names...I wonder how many species are named veitchii...I have come across many. Veitch and sons were British Nurserymen in the mid 1800's into the 20th century.

How many Paph species are named after where they were found?? I can think of only one...javanicum

William Cattley who grew some new plant material included with other tropical plants sent to him from South America. One of the plants flowered in 1818 and created something of a sensation. It was shown to botanist John Lindley and Lindley named the plant Cattleya labiata. Swainson, was the man who collected Cattley's plants in Brazil. So other than blooming it Cattley played no other part and there is a genus named after him.

Look at other Paph species names, for example charlesworthii, parishii, lowii, fowliei...ect they are all named after a person.

Personally, I think kovachii is here to stay. Even in Peru it is known as Phrag kovachii


----------



## myxodex (Jul 18, 2007)

My personal opinion is that naming species after people should be stopped. It makes much more sense to name them after a geographical region or something descriptive about the species. As a scientist by profession (although not a botanist) I find it surprising that this tradition of naming species after people has survived so long ... it is a pompous nonsense born in the age of western imperialism ... the idea that if you find something ... whatever, wherever ... you somehow own it or have special rights to it.
Cheers,
Tim


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

Gee, I could then enjoy the confusion from 350 different orchids named ecuadorense.


----------



## isaias m rolando (Jul 18, 2007)

To Name A Specie After A Person That Is Acting Illegally? After A Person That Has Been Convicted For His Crime? This Is Not Against Comen Sense Only But An Issue Of Rights.
You Are Right Nyeric, What About De Confusion For The Ecuadorenses Orchids?
The Name Peruvianum Was Not Scientifically Accepted. So Why It Should Not Apply As Valid?
Come On Olaf. Is Not That We Don`t Like Mr Kovach. Most People Don`t Even Know The Guy. It Is An Issue About Ethics, Legallity And Finally Comon Sense.


----------



## Hien (Jul 18, 2007)

NYEric said:


> Gee, I could then enjoy the confusion from 350 different orchids named ecuadorense.



Eric,:rollhappy::rollhappy:Isn't that nice when you no longer have the urge to collect so many plants anymore.
Once they all carry the same name. :clap: 
Imagine you will have to do some leg exercises at the gym to be able to stroll around the city with a much heavier & intact wallet.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

First of all, we should remember that the establishment of a Royal Gardens in Britain was to promote economic strength by being able to control the price of agricultural goods in certain colonies by being able to grow plants in other colonies. Many illegal practices, including collection of plants into extinction by the individuals they're named after, have occurred and nobody is disputing or proposing changing the names of those plants!


----------



## gonewild (Jul 18, 2007)

myxodex said:


> My personal opinion is that naming species after people should be stopped. It makes much more sense to name them after a geographical region or something descriptive about the species. As a scientist by profession (although not a botanist) I find it surprising that this tradition of naming species after people has survived so long ... it is a pompous nonsense born in the age of western imperialism ... the idea that if you find something ... whatever, wherever ... you somehow own it or have special rights to it.
> Cheers,
> Tim



And should your plan include also naming hybrids after people?

"it is a pompous nonsense born in the age of western imperialism "
Maybe, but why should not Mr and Mrs Imperialism have a right to name their children as they see fit?

I think when someone puts in a great effort to search out and discover new species they should have the right to name it whatever they like. If they want to give it their own name because they are proud of it the world should accept and respect it. 

I'm not defending the name kovachii but rather the naming rules that applied to the acceptance of the name. I'm also not a scientist.


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 18, 2007)

Ron-NY said:


> How many Paph species are named after where they were found?? I can think of only one...javanicum



there are a few others: vietnamense, malipoense, thaianum, philippinense, bougainvilleanum, papuanum....

Most are named after people or an aspect of the flower.


----------



## myxodex (Jul 19, 2007)

I must confess that I do not really think that the naming of species is that important ... after all the species description is far more important. However, when I was working with the myxomycetes (plasmodial slime moulds) I remember that the vast majority of names were descriptive (eg polycephalum, serpula, leucopodia, roseum etc.) . 
There is something "down-to-earth" and of common sense in this approach. Since I have become interested in orchids (as a hobbyist) I've been struck by the fact that a majority of the species names (at least in Paphiopedilum) are after people. It is this that inspired me to be provocative and over-state my 
feelings on this issue. I do not REALLY believe that any prescriptive rules against naming species after people would serve any purpose. 

When a botanist or collector, for example, has made a significant contribution to the biology/taxonomy of this field then it seems quite reasonable to honour them by naming a species after them ... however, don't ask me to respect 
someone who names a species after themselves ... no matter how much work they've done. 

By the way Lance, it comes as rather disappointing news to me that Mr and Mrs Imperialism were capable of orchid offspring ... I have apparently been labouring under the misconception, it seems, ... that orchids preceeded these "parents" by a significant stretch of history ... ahhh ... we live and learn !! 

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## isaias m rolando (Jul 19, 2007)

I can see clearly nobody cares again about illegal activities.
This is an ethical issue. Is not that Mr Kovach put money or effort to *discover*. This is not the case. He com mited a crime a nobody cares...


----------



## gonewild (Jul 19, 2007)

myxodex said:


> I must confess that I do not really think that the naming of species is that important ... after all the species description is far more important. However, when I was working with the myxomycetes (plasmodial slime moulds) I remember that the vast majority of names were descriptive (eg polycephalum, serpula, leucopodia, roseum etc.) .



Well I can't think of any reason a person would not want a slime mold named after them! oke: 



> There is something "down-to-earth" and of common sense in this approach. Since I have become interested in orchids (as a hobbyist) I've been struck by the fact that a majority of the species names (at least in Paphiopedilum) are after people. It is this that inspired me to be provocative and over-state my
> feelings on this issue. I do not REALLY believe that any prescriptive rules against naming species after people would serve any purpose.



I agree, because a name is only a guide to the description.



> When a botanist or collector, for example, has made a significant contribution to the biology/taxonomy of this field then it seems quite reasonable to honour them by naming a species after them ... however, don't ask me to respect
> someone who names a species after themselves ... no matter how much work they've done.



I agree with you here also. But I bet most descriptions are written by someone other than the person who actually made the discovery. The ultimate control of the name falls with the description author and not the collector, unless the collector has made a contract with the describer.



> By the way Lance, it comes as rather disappointing news to me that Mr and Mrs Imperialism were capable of orchid offspring ... I have apparently been labouring under the misconception, it seems, ... that orchids preceeded these "parents" by a significant stretch of history ... ahhh ... we live and learn !!
> Cheers,
> Tim



Adoptive parents of children get to name their offspring. Pet owners (keepers) get to name their pets. Orchids did precede humans and they could care less what names humans call them by. They know their real names and will always use them when speaking to other orchids. 

Or maybe we should assume the newly discovered plants did not precede humans and they were born when they were finally discovered? :rollhappy:

I actually agree with all your points except about making a rule dictating what names a person can't use for a new species.


----------



## gonewild (Jul 19, 2007)

isaias m rolando said:


> I can see clearly nobody cares again about illegal activities.
> This is an ethical issue. Is not that Mr Kovach put money or effort to *discover*. This is not the case. He com mited a crime a nobody cares...



Somebody must care, Mr. Kovach was punished for his crime.

Mr. Kovach did not write the description or assign his name to the plant. The scientists who wrote the description are the ones responsible for that decision, blame them.

The name of the plant should have been in honor of the "peasant" who led Kovach by the hand to the plant, that is the person who made the discovery and should bear the honor.


----------



## Candace (Jul 19, 2007)

Isaias, I agree with you. Is it just a state law or federal law where prisoners aren't allow to benefit from their crimes financially? For example, writing and selling books about the crime. But in this case he's not receiving money, so I guess there's not law against fame...


----------



## NYEric (Jul 19, 2007)

Yes, I can see it now; "Hi, my name is kovach and I have a plant named after me, can you see that I get a good table."


----------



## Candace (Jul 19, 2007)




----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jul 19, 2007)

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, depending on your view, what counts in the naming of a species is priority in publishing. You could choose to name a species after Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson, and it would be acceptable if proper procedures were followed, and the earliest publication has priority. If Olaf is right, and peruvanum had been used before on a different plant, there is no escaping the correctness of the name "kovachii", regardless of how offensive it may seem. Thousands of species are named every year.....most are tiny little insects or invisible fungi, and no one cares about who gets honored....The spectacular finds that inspire passions, like P. kovachii, are literally 1 in many 1000's...it doesn't make sense to re-write the rules of scientific priority that have been in place for decades, if not more than a century, for these very rare exceptions....Take care, Eric


----------



## li'l frog (Jul 20, 2007)

Of course, the name is now etched in stone; and I don't expect that Mr. K will be caging free drinks or better tables at restaurants because of it. But we orchid people live in a small pond, and know and know of each other, and in our little pond, this is a big deal. I know it can't be changed now, but i am still happy that RHS has put an * next to the name -- like baseball players who may or may not take drugs, or runners with wind-assisted records. Some of us will remember.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 20, 2007)

..and not buy the plant?


----------



## li'l frog (Jul 20, 2007)

The plant, fortunately, will grow and prosper without consciousness of who it is named for. Buying or not buying the plant has no effect on Mr. K, unless you buy it, or not, from him. It would be an idle protest. The legal plants in the system are not connected in any way to the origin of the name. Mine are still growing, and making new leaves, but slowly. I have one hybrid, which looks exactly the same as the day I got it, about a month ago.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 28, 2007)

Sorry to bump this but the Barry Bonds indictment reminded me...


----------



## li'l frog (Nov 28, 2007)

And there are rumors of a possible official protest to the naming, with the taxonomic authorities. Anybody know what's going on?


----------



## NYEric (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't think the taxonomists have a leg to stand on.


----------

