Phrag caudatum group Taxonomy

[Mahon]

Pat, you may have a point there. I saw some of his letters. One to Lightbinders when they released the "Orchids of the New World" CD-ROM.
And compared to his temper and language, mine is that of a Roman Catholic Convent Girl school.

I have never been able to figure out why Eric has such hatred towards Selby and what made Selby declare Eric persona non grata.

Guido,

I too have seen some of E.A. Christenson's "angry letters"... some were sent to Luer, Dalstrom, Higgins, Holst, and Lowman (ex-pres.)... I read some of his letters, and there was absolutely no reason for them. Most of them are just made up nonsense... I won't go into specifics, but will try and find a few copies of them. We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"...

The reason Eric has much hatred towards Selby is because he is not allowed to come here. He writes those "angry letters", accusing affiliates of Selby of wrong doing. I believe he even wrote an untruthful letter to the AOS and another organization, which caused a bit of trouble here (again, won't go into specifics until I find the letters again).

All he really has to do is just talk with the people he wrote the "angry letters" to, and clear everything up... he has a great medical problem for an excuse!

-P.A. Mahon

 

[kentuckiense]

Dr. Braem-
Ever considered working with the genus Cypripedium?

 

[Braem]

Yes ... but I just did not get to it. But I am willing to look at any specific problems. One of the problems is that I don't have enough reference pictures etc.

Guido

Dr. Braem-
Ever considered working with the genus Cypripedium?

 

[kentuckiense]

Yes ... but I just did not get to it. But I am willing to look at any specific problems. One of the problems is that I don't have enough reference pictures etc.

Guido

Dr. Braem-
I agree with the sentiment that there are not enough reference photos. I've been trying forever to track down a photo of C. subtropicum. I can only assume that there is only one photo and it is currently locked away in the catacombs of Kew.

 

[VAAlbert]

Mahon wrote:

...We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"...

...he has a great medical problem for an excuse!

I really don't like these ad hominem statements. If you think ill of demeaning statements that might have come from Eric, why do you then write your own?

If you are associated with Selby, you are doing that institution a severe disservice.

Sincerely,

Vic Albert

 

[slippertalker]

Mahon wrote:



I really don't like these ad hominem statements. If you think ill of demeaning statements that might have come from Eric, why do you then write your own?

If you are associated with Selby, you are doing that institution a severe disservice.

Sincerely,

Vic Albert

Vic,

Pat has been booted from this forum, so you won't be seeing any response from him on this..... My personal opinion on Eric is mostly favorable, he's a likeable guy and has strong opinions as many of us do. Some of the problems with Selby evolved from the Phrag kovachii debacle and some other problems both with Selby and AOS. In sum, not too different from many of us!

 

[Paphman910]

Guido,

I too have seen some of E.A. Christenson's "angry letters"... some were sent to Luer, Dalstrom, Higgins, Holst, and Lowman (ex-pres.)... I read some of his letters, and there was absolutely no reason for them. Most of them are just made up nonsense... I won't go into specifics, but will try and find a few copies of them. We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic, and that would be the reason he writes the "angry letters"...

-P.A. Mahon

Your quote "We believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic" is absolutely rude. You are very ignorant and you are being prejuduce against people with this mental illness. I am appalled by your language. People who suffer from mental illness are looked down in society because of ignorant people like you.


Paphman910

 

[Heather]

FYI, I've received several emails from former member, Mahon, since being banned. He may not be able to respond, but he seems to still be reading (and threatening), so, I'd say, feel free to continue to reply. Maybe he'll learn something.

 

[Marco]

All Mr. Mahon will speak to and hear is now just an echo in a bubble.

----

Anyway back to the topic at hand. I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I don't even know how to pronounced half the words on this thread. Well then again I don't even know how to pronouce the names of half of the paph/phrag species that. I just think the plants cause the flowers look nice

k carry on

 

[likespaphs]

other than the hullaballoo at the end of this, is the discussion of names still valid?

 

[NYEric]

look them up!

 

[SlipperFan]

It's not that easy -- it really depends on who you count on as your authority.

 

[likespaphs]

lately i've been using http://www.theplantlist.org/

 

[SlipperFan]

I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.

 

[Braem]

I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.

I will ... but not tonight ... it is 2:36 in the morning and I am too tired , just remind me where the thread is.

 

[Braem]

I wish Dr. Braem would weigh in.

OK, here I come in:

the taxonomy of the Phrag. caudatum group was clarified in detail in an article by Braem, Ohlund and Quené in 2004 (Orquideologíca, Volume 23, No. 2, pages 87-136). If you read that article (there is a Spanish text on pages 87-116, and an English text on pages 117-136), there actually should be no questions left. The Illustrations are in the Spanish text.

In that article we discussed the entire group and I worked with the original literature. That is also why there was a second article in that same issue by me and Sandy Ohlund showing that lots of misunderstandings (such as the description of Phrag. humboldtii by Dressler) resulted from the fact that there were misinterpretations of the original Reichenbach texts which are in German. I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in this group of plants gets that issue of Orquideología.

You will all understand that I can't post 25 pages of text here ... but I will answer specific questions. Unfortunately, Dressler ..... made Orchid Digest publish an article that confused a lot of people ... I will refrain to comment on that here except for a repeat of my claim: "If you don't understand German, ask someone who does before you write nonsense." Also my late friend Eric did not make the situation easier by claiming that Phrag warsziwiczii (whatever he meant by that) is a separate entity ... (Even if it were, it would be invalid because "warszewiczii" is nothing but another grammatic form of "warszewiczianum".

I will have this treatment and the rest of the genus in my Phrag book, but I will not complete it until I have a publisher, or until there is a sponsor who is willing to finance a print-on-demand edition.

If you get the English texts of the articles (maybe scanned by someone) make sure you have him/her scan the pages with the illustrations from the Spanish texts.

As it is, there are the following valid species:
Phragmipedium caudatum
Phragmipedium lindenii
Phragmipedium exstaminodium
Phragmipedium popowii
Phragmipedium warszewiczianum

now shoot away with your questions ... and I will answer them one by one.

(I hope there are not too many typos in this posting)

 

[SlipperFan]

Thanks, Dr. Braem.

So is this correct?:
Phragmipedium caudatum
Phragmipedium lindenii
Phragmipedium exstaminodium
Phragmipedium popowii (formerly known as warszewiczianum, warceswiczii)
Phragmipedium warszewiczianum (formerly known as wallisii)

I found these notes I made some time ago:

From Stephen Manza:
According to traditional usage, the easiest way to distinguish between these 3 species/ varieties is to look at the color of the flower, especially the lip.

caudatum - greenish-yellow flower, lip greenish-yellow with brown near the rim
ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragcaudatum1.jpg
"A large number of varieties or geographical forms of this species appear in the literature, the main difference being flower color and size. In addition, several varieties have been described that today are classified as distinct species by a few authors and by the International Registration Authority of Orchid Hybrids."
wallisii (now warscewiczianum) - yellowish flower, lip creamy ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwallisii2.jpg
"The variety is distinguished from the normal form of P. caudatum by the following traits: staminode three-lobed, acuminate lateral lobes arching backwards; mouth of labellum yellow, spotted brown; margin of petals glabrous; smaller flowers."
warscewiczianum (now popowii)- yellowish-brown flower, lip with yellowish background and a very dark brown area near the rim. ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwarscewiczianum3.jpg
"Dark green leaves shorter and wider than those of other members of the section; usually only one to three flowers; flower color is more dark brown; staminode smooth, and long trapezoid to almost rhomboid in shape; mouth of labellum is yellow-brown."

 

[Braem]

Thanks, Dr. Braem.

So is this correct?:
Phragmipedium caudatum
Phragmipedium lindenii
Phragmipedium exstaminodium
Phragmipedium popowii (formerly known as warszewiczianum, warceswiczii)
Phragmipedium warszewiczianum (formerly known as wallisii)

I found these notes I made some time ago:

From Stephen Manza:
According to traditional usage, the easiest way to distinguish between these 3 species/ varieties is to look at the color of the flower, especially the lip.

caudatum - greenish-yellow flower, lip greenish-yellow with brown near the rim
ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragcaudatum1.jpg
"A large number of varieties or geographical forms of this species appear in the literature, the main difference being flower color and size. In addition, several varieties have been described that today are classified as distinct species by a few authors and by the International Registration Authority of Orchid Hybrids."
wallisii (now warscewiczianum) - yellowish flower, lip creamy ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwallisii2.jpg
"The variety is distinguished from the normal form of P. caudatum by the following traits: staminode three-lobed, acuminate lateral lobes arching backwards; mouth of labellum yellow, spotted brown; margin of petals glabrous; smaller flowers."
warscewiczianum (now popowii)- yellowish-brown flower, lip with yellowish background and a very dark brown area near the rim. ex. http://www.slipperorchids.info/phragspecies/Phragwarscewiczianum3.jpg
"Dark green leaves shorter and wider than those of other members of the section; usually only one to three flowers; flower color is more dark brown; staminode smooth, and long trapezoid to almost rhomboid in shape; mouth of labellum is yellow-brown."

Your listing is fully correct. The name "wallisii" was (and probably still is) erroneously applied for the plant that was originally described as warszewiczianum. Therefore wallisii is a synonym. But this also meant that there was also need for a new name for the plant formerly in cultivation as warzewiczianum, and that name is P. popowii.

And about "traditional use" (your quote of Stephen Manza) ... traditional use does not mean that it is correct.

The only alternative to the list above is to regards the ENTIRE complex as A SINGLE species (P. caudatum) and then consider the rest as subspecies or varieties or whatever. At the time we discussed our article, we discussed that possibility, but rejected it for many reasons (among which were: the anticipated non-acceptance by both amateur growers and commercial growers - acceptedly not a scientific argument). But considering all one species would be especially a problem for lindenii and exstaminodium.

One last comment on your note: The International Authority of Orchid Hybrids is not a botanical authority, and in fact a self-destined horticultural authority which has made some very, very obscure and/or irrational decisions.

 

[SlipperFan]

One thing I'm not clear about is sanderianum. Is that another one that is simply caudatum? I have one opening now, but from the description from Stephen and Sandy, it looks like caudatum. Or what's the difference???

 

[Braem]

One thing I'm not clear about is sanderianum. Is that another one that is simply caudatum? I have one opening now, but from the description from Stephen and Sandy, it looks like caudatum. Or what's the difference???

That is a "variant" of P. caudatum ... in my opinion just horticultural designation. It is usually marketed as P. caudatum "sanderae" .