Paphiopedilum trantuanii

[quietaustralian]

To compare to other photots around,this is a Paph.xAspersum(in my opinion),seen in bloom in a batch of plants mixed(coccineum,henrianum,tranliemianum,helenae) in malaisya nearly 10 yers ago...what do you think?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I dont think it looks much like the "in situ" pic but I've seen x aspersum described with two different parentages. The "in situ" pic looks almost identical to some clones of Paph Mary Zdilla.

Regards, Mick

 

[Kavanaru]

A Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

indeed, never heard of it.. te bulletin of the SOG is called "Orchidee"

 

[quietaustralian]

1) The "publication" of "Paphiopedilum trantuanhii" appeared as ab Internet publication under "Selected Orchid Science" ... and is thus void and nil. The rules clearly rule out a publication on the internet (see below).

2) As I have stated in an earlier posting: The Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

Thus the name P. truantuanhi is invalid and void ...

I don't know what the authors were thinking when they published this, but at least Xavier should know that the ICBN states that electronic publications are invalid. (Article 29 of the Code). And even if there is a true publication on paper somewhere, it is also invalid as it bases on the original that was published on the web. Anything published based on an invalid name is invalid.

Now to the contents: The authors write (first page, 4th paragraph): "In September 206, one of us (Xavier ...) has been shown pictures and sample specimens of a new species ... This species has been compared with Paphiopedilum coccineum Perner & Herrmann, and Paphiopedilum henryanum G.J. Braem to which it is closely related."

Now looking at the picture in the web "publication" one can indeed argue that this plant could be a hybrid between coccineum and henryanum or better between barbigerum and henryanum. ... But as the plants come from a nursery, one can also "think" that this may be a man-made hybrid.

In any case, the flower of the web publication do NOT correspond to the flowers shown on the habitat picture posted in this thread....

Maybe now some people will start to understand why I always claim that "taxonomy should be left to taxonomists".

Where did you find the web based description? I did a web search and found a Vietnamese website that gave an extract of the description (without pics or figures) but didn't give details of where it was originally published.

I agree that taxonomy should be left to taxonomists. I'm interested in the mystery that is Paph trantuanii/trantuananhii/x trantuananhii? and Paph. helenae forma delicatum.


Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

Where did you find the web based description? I did a web search and found a Vietnamese website that gave an extract of the description (without pics or figures) but didn't give details of where it was originally published.

I agree that taxonomy should be left to taxonomists. I'm interested in the mystery that is Paph trantuanii/trantuananhii/x trantuananhii? and Paph. helenae forma delicatum.


Regards, Mick

I got the copy from my friend Rudolf Jenny out of Switzerland ... I have googled for it but did not find it. Really, if Xavier (and he is on this forum and will certainly be reading this) wants to publish, he should do it properly.

 

[SelectOrchids]

Just a short note as I am overloaded with work:

the SOS bulletin existed as a paper edition, and was the one sent to Kew to validate trantuanii ( like henryanum in its time. SOS bulletin was planned to be published on the long term, but some participants disagreed, dropped, wanted to take the control.. normal story. The paper edition was and is the original one.

As for the history of that plant, Tran Tuan Anh showed to me some HUNDREDS wild collected plants, I know since from which area. They were all identical, with spots on the dorsal, and maybe resulting from a hybrid swamp of henryanum and coccineum originally, but all fresh from the wild. In fact he ordered a batch from the collector of coccineum (some dozen kilograms of plants) in low spike/bloom for a customer, and ended up with that new species/variety/natural hybrid colony.

He sold those a premium price after having divided every clump in single growth, so that nearly no plant from the original collection survive.

I have to say too that the plants I have have flower that are way, way bigger than henryanum or coccineum when they bloom, usually in the 12 to 14cm as a minumum. (that's when they bloom, apparently a growth matures slower than henryanum.).


During a trip to the minorities with two foreigners 2 years ago, we took more picture of a few left plants ( less than 5 so far). Tran Tuan Anh was not on that trip at all.

Afterwards, he tried to sell coccineum, henryanum and other things under that name. But the original plants of trantuanii are nearly all gone.

helenae delicatulum, same story, there has been a colony, now wiped out, close to Yen Bai, very far from the original helenae colony. Few plants are still alive today. But apparently there is one collector who still can get it, though it remains to be seen in bloom.

 

[Braem]

Just a short note as I am overloaded with work:

the SOS bulletin existed as a paper edition, and was the one sent to Kew to validate trantuanii ( like henryanum in its time. SOS bulletin was planned to be published on the long term, but some participants disagreed, dropped, wanted to take the control.. normal story. The paper edition was and is the original one.

As for the history of that plant, Tran Tuan Anh showed to me some HUNDREDS wild collected plants, I know since from which area. They were all identical, with spots on the dorsal, and maybe resulting from a hybrid swamp of henryanum and coccineum originally, but all fresh from the wild. In fact he ordered a batch from the collector of coccineum (some dozen kilograms of plants) in low spike/bloom for a customer, and ended up with that new species/variety/natural hybrid colony.

He sold those a premium price after having divided every clump in single growth, so that nearly no plant from the original collection survive.

I have to say too that the plants I have have flower that are way, way bigger than henryanum or coccineum when they bloom, usually in the 12 to 14cm as a minumum. (that's when they bloom, apparently a growth matures slower than henryanum.).


During a trip to the minorities with two foreigners 2 years ago, we took more picture of a few left plants ( less than 5 so far). Tran Tuan Anh was not on that trip at all.

Afterwards, he tried to sell coccineum, henryanum and other things under that name. But the original plants of trantuanii are nearly all gone.

helenae delicatulum, same story, there has been a colony, now wiped out, close to Yen Bai, very far from the original helenae colony. Few plants are still alive today. But apparently there is one collector who still can get it, though it remains to be seen in bloom.

No,No ... Xavier, you can't get away with that. You can't make one issue and the say "oh sorry" we have discontinued. Schlechteriana existed 7 years. And sending a publication to Kew alone is not a publication.

If you want that plant recognized as a species ... you must publish it in accordance with the ICBN.

What happened to the plant and pictures or whatever, is of no concern in respect to taxonomy.

And the story about "helenae delicatum" is just as confuse ... do the work properly, if you want it recognized.

 

[quietaustralian]

The legality of the publishing of this plant is not for me to say but I’m still curious about a few details.

I have seen two internet references to the publication of this plant; one refers to P. trantuanii and the other to P. x trantuanhii, the second appears to be a typo. I’d expect the name to be x trantuanii or x trantuananhii. What name was used when it was published?

A picture of a plant appears in this thread, Trần Tuấn Anh himself says this is Paph trantuanii. I’m predicting that someone will say that it doesn’t matter what Tuấn Anh says but I’m interested to know if Tuấn Anh’s picture resembles the plant in the publication.

Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

The legality of the publishing of this plant is not for me to say but I’m still curious about a few details.

I have seen two internet references to the publication of this plant; one refers to P. trantuanii and the other to P. x trantuanhii, the second appears to be a typo. I’d expect the name to be x trantuanii or x trantuananhii. What name was used when it was published?

A picture of a plant appears in this thread, Trần Tuấn Anh himself says this is Paph trantuanii. I’m predicting that someone will say that it doesn’t matter what Tuấn Anh says but I’m interested to know if Tuấn Anh’s picture resembles the plant in the publication.

Regards, Mick

Mick,

no that is not a typo ... it means that the authors decided to change their opinion and now consider the plant a natural hybrid. It is a mistake in that the "x" should be put directly before the name, that is "xtrantuanii" and not "x trantuanii" ... that would be a valid "move" if the taxon were published effectively, which it is not.

 

[quietaustralian]

Mick,

no that is not a typo ... it means that the authors decided to change their opinion and now consider the plant a natural hybrid. It is a mistake in that the "x" should be put directly before the name, that is "xtrantuanii" and not "x trantuanii" ... that would be a valid "move" if the taxon were published effectively, which it is not.

Thanks for that.

I thought the typo was in the actual name, it just doesn't read right.
The plant was named after Trần Tuấn Anh so I'd assume it would be named xtrantuanii or xtrantuananhii but on Kew its xtrantuanhii . Maybe Kew made a typo?
It was published as a natural hybrid?

Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

Thanks for that.

I thought the typo was in the actual name, it just doesn't read right.
The plant was named after Trần Tuấn Anh so I'd assume it would be named xtrantuanii or xtrantuananhii but on Kew its xtrantuanhii . Maybe Kew made a typo?
It was published as a natural hybrid?

Regards, Mick

It wasn't publisdhed as anything according to the rules, so Julian at Kew goofed (not the first time), I have a contact in England who can ask ...

 

[Paphluvr]

Paphiopedilum trantuanii species or hybrid?

If you'll notice the tag in one of the photos and assume that they followed normal naming convention, then it appears to be a hybrid as the "T" in trantuanii is capitalized.

Just an observation!

 

[slippertalker]

If you'll notice the tag in one of the photos and assume that they followed normal naming convention, then it appears to be a hybrid as the "T" in trantuanii is capitalized.

Just an observation!

You might note that all of the letters were in caps, not just the first one....
I wouldn't place any importance on that....

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

This may be meaningless, but it seems that when scientific names are published in British publications, the species name is capitalized if it is named after someone....only in British journals, nowhere else.

 

[likespaphs]

This may be meaningless, but it seems that when scientific names are published in British publications, the species name is capitalized if it is named after someone....only in British journals, nowhere else.

hmmm
this seems to go against all the typical naming rules

 

[Kavanaru]

This may be meaningless, but it seems that when scientific names are published in British publications, the species name is capitalized if it is named after someone....only in British journals, nowhere else.

you sure about that? I have seen/noticed that at all... will no do some checks....

 

[cxcanh]

Sorry everyone to take this thread back because I search in formation for this species. It blooming in my hand now and I still not sure what is the valid name.