Phrag popowii

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

blondie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
2,690
Reaction score
172
Location
Tamworth UK
Morning Afternoon Evening

So I brought this off a friend as a job lot it had never flowered for him, so this is a first bloom. I dont think it is pure caudatum as its extremley dark. Any surgestions.

It sent a sheath up in novemeber december didn't think much off it as it looked like a leaf the in jan i saw the spike and it fully opened up monday just gone.

The flower so far is 11inches i dunno if it will get any longer i shall keepon looking to see if it dose.

image upload no limitcertificity.com
photo uploadcertificity.com
photo uploadingcertificity.com
screen capture windows 7certificity.com
photo hostcertificity.com
 
Last edited:
According to Cribb's recently published 'Slipper Orchids of the Tropical Americas' it is Phrag . humboldtii.

Thanks for the comments.

So with trying not to open a can of worms what is the difference between humboldtii and popowii.
 
And Dr. Guido Braem made a good case for it being popowii. Who has the last word?

Well, with taxonomy, it's not authoritarian, and it's more democratic (or chaotic); each person can decide based on the evidence presented. But this issue is more about the nomenclature than taxonomy. So the rule should be clear, but there are still some gray areas.

I think that the interpretation of the article 46.2 of International Code of Nomenclature seems to be different between Dr. Braem and the rest of people.

Pupulin and Dressler (2011) pointed out that this P. humboldtii case is similar to Example 4;

Ex.4. In Torrey & Gray (1838) the names Calyptridium and C. monandrum were ascribed to “Nutt. mss.”, and the descriptions were enclosed in double quotes indicating that Nuttall wrote them, as acknowledged in the preface. The names are therefore cited as Calyptridium Nutt. and C. monandrum Nutt.

To me, 2nd para in p. 168 of Pupulin and Dressler (2011) seems to make sense. I asked Dr. Braem, why their interpretation is wrong in facebook, and I didn't get a satisfactory answer. He said Warszewicz didn't INTEND to describe the species. But the "intention" doesn't seem to matter according to Populin and Dressler (and also from my attempt to read the relevant sections of ICN). And he seems to make a big deal that there is no manuscript, even though Reichenbach mentioned that he received a letter from Warszewicz (a hand-written letter is a form of manuscript). Well, he seems to assume that most people are moron, so he probably didn't feel like explaining his view to me in details. So Pupulin and Dressler's argument seems to be more supported by ICN (but I'm not completely decided).

Here is a link to a paper repeating Pupulin's view: (PDF link).
Pupulin, F, 2016 Phragmipedium humboldtii (Warsz.) J. T. Atwood & Dressler - On the Correct Name for the Central American long-petaled Phragmipedium; Again. Orchids, February: 148-153
 
Last edited:
Back
Top