paph. Delliana or paph. Annabellchen??

[slippertalker]

Leo, you have again said all that needs to be said. So many arguments occur on orchids when " popular figures" in the orchid world promote their theories, with illustrations, in widely distributed publications and because of their notoriety, have many believing what they say is gospel and the actual 'expert' finds it difficult to get the correct message across. This where the 'true' name gets lost and false hybrids registered.
Thanks Leo.

I agree with this 100%, but the problem is that the "experts" often have strong differences of opinion. Determining the "true" name or relationship is tenuous at best, just look at the differences between Cribb and Braem. Both have valid perspectives but different conclusions. The bottom line is that none of them are certain and the science changes over time.

The reason I brought up the Asher argument was that 1) they visited the habitat, and 2) noticed the close proximity of Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. (across the valley on different strata).

There certainly are morphological differences, and without being able to go back in time we will never know for sure. With the close relationship of Paph primulinum and its var. purpurascens, it seems evident that at some point there was an ancestor that wasn't albinistic. Whether it was Paph liemianum or not will probably never be answered for sure, but if it isn't then what is the ancestor?

 

[Leo Schordje]

I agree with this 100%, but the problem is that the "experts" often have strong differences of opinion. <snip>The bottom line is that none of [the "experts"] are certain and the science changes over time. <snip>

If you had ever met Dr Braem or Dr Cribb you would never suggest that they felt any uncertainty in their conclusions. None At ALL Nada !! These guys are adamant in their conclusions. Over the years, Dr. Braem has changed his mind on a few things, you should read his last book, the one that came out in 2004. Not his 1988 book. Braem changed his mind on a number of things between 1988 and 2004. These guys don't change their minds without reasons, so assume they put some serious research and thought into it.

You original question is what to call your hybrid. The RHS accepts liemanianum for registration. When a registration is submitted as chamberlainianum var liemianum, the RHS considers it a synonym of liemianum. With this in mind - label your hybrid Paph Annabellchen.

<snip> The reason I brought up the Asher argument was that 1) they visited the habitat, and 2) noticed the close proximity of Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. (across the valley on different strata). <snip>

Proximity does not mean synonymy. Foxes, coyote, and wolf can and are sympatric species, but do not hybridize in the wild. They will hybridize in captivity if no intra-specific partner is present. I am reasonably certain the pollinator studies for primulinum and liemianum have not been done, but I feel comfortable asserting that when they are done, they will show different pollinator insects or a spacial issolation mechanism.

<snip> There certainly are morphological differences, and without being able to go back in time we will never know for sure. With the close relationship of Paph primulinum and its var. purpurascens, it seems evident that at some point there was an ancestor that wasn't albinistic. Whether it was Paph liemianum or not will probably never be answered for sure, but if it isn't then what is the ancestor?

The ancestral form was not any of the current existing species. The ancestor of primulinum and liemianum was neither, both species represent the product of evolutionary advances over time. All existing species represent the culmination of evolution to current date. They are dynamic, not static. One is just as 'modern" as the other.

Hope this all helps.
Leo

 

[slippertalker]

Actually I have met Guido and discussed various subjects with him. You are right, he's very opinionated and especially with those who cross him. I haven't read his 2004 book, so I'm not familiar with his most recent changes.

The point I'm making is that even though they speak with certainty, relationships and science evolve and there is not certainty in the results. They are always subject to changing their opinions, often disagreeing with their prior ideas. The end result is they aren't always "right" even though we like to think so. They are more knowledgeable, generally, in expressing their opinions.

I didn't bring up the question about the hybrid, and it was previously answered as you stated.

I agree that proximity doesn't equal synonomy, but it can be one indicator of a close relationship. Proving it is a seperate issue. There are numerous cases of populations in paphiopedilum evolving due to endemic isolation. They can have common ancestors but evolve differently due to geology and inbreeding. For example, the entire cochlopetalum group has unifying characteristics that are unique from other groups. Does this speak to one common ancestor or parallel evolution?

Thanks for the dialogue....

 

[Leo Schordje]

I enjoy the back and forth too, thanks