'The Scent of Scandal" discussion

[gonewild]

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. The plant was not a Phrag. It was NOTHING, it was an unidentified plant when the export/import occurred. It needs an published scientific description to have a genus and a species and therefore be protected by CITES.

It was an orchid.
All orchid species are listed on CITES.

It was easily identified as a Phrag, that is why he transported it.
All Phrags are CITES1.

Without an official description the Peruvian government would not have issued export permits.

No plants legally enter the USA without a phytosanitary certificate. If he had a false certificate then that is just another offense.

The fact it had no formal species name means nothing under CITES enforcement. It is the importing persons responsibility to make correct species identification BEFORE importing into the USA. This is clearly stated on all plant import permits.

No export/import occurred if the plant was smuggled and not decvlared.

CITES is a bad law and bad program but it was written well enough to make it difficult to get around. Anyone transporting species across International borders is held accountable under CITES.

Just saying the way it is.

 

[Gcroz]

CITES is a bad law and bad program but it was written well enough to make it difficult to get around.

Yup! They had good lawyers to draft the treaty!

 

[newbud]

Yeeaaahhh. Not a Phrag.? Com On. He and the Lee's knew exactly what they had. The law that says that no Phragmipediums can leave Peru without a permit is quite clear. I hated the whole mess for Kovach. With all the crap that's been going on in the orchid world the last several years (read Eric Hansen's book) he should not have gone through all the stuff he did along with Selby and those poor people. It was the "perfect storm" legally, presented by the Government against these people and should never have happened. But as we have witnessed here and in the book there are some real crooks out that deserve what he got and more. Too bad.

 

[ChrisFL]

I doesn't matter whether it was a new genus, the objective scientific perspective is that until is formally identified, it is an unknown, undescribed organism, and it is not a CITES-inclusive organism. As a real scientist, I take the hard line on such things.

 

[ChrisFL]

It was an orchid.
All orchid species are listed on CITES.

sensu strictu, it was not even an orchid until formally described and documented by science.

 

[ChrisFL]

The fact it had no formal species name means nothing under CITES enforcement. It is the importing persons responsibility to make correct species identification BEFORE importing into the USA. This is clearly stated on all plant import permits.

It means everything. There can be no correct species identification if the species has not been described by science. It cannot even be considered a plant until formal description. Again, scientist taking the scientific hard line.

 

[ChrisFL]

and before people go nuts on me, yes, I understand the common sense perspective of all this.

 

[Kyle]

Chris absolutly correct. The only known was that it was a plant. Since it had not been described, we didn't know if CITES applied.

Kyle

 

[gonewild]

It means everything. There can be no correct species identification if the species has not been described by science. It cannot even be considered a plant until formal description. Again, scientist taking the scientific hard line.

So as a scientist you can't differentiate between a bird and a plant until someone writes down a description for you?

I guess scientists and cops both have equally hard lines they follow.

 

[gonewild]

Chris absolutly correct. The only known was that it was a plant. Since it had not been described, we didn't know if CITES applied.

Kyle

Not correct. No description was needed to key it out as far a the genus. The description was only needed to go beyond genus to determine species.

CITES lists the genus or Phragmipedium and ignores the species within the genus.

 

[ChrisFL]

Not correct. No description was needed to key it out as far a the genus. The description was only needed to go beyond genus to determine species.

CITES lists the genus or Phragmipedium and ignores the species within the genus.

Totally incorrect. An organism does not exist in the binomial system until it is formally scientifically described.

So you would know the difference between an unidentified Laelia or Cattleya genus plant without an formal scientific description? Taxonomists still argue to this day about Catt/Laelia plants with holotypes that are how old?

Sorry. I stand by what I said.

 

[gonewild]

I doesn't matter whether it was a new genus, the objective scientific perspective is that until is formally identified, it is an unknown, undescribed organism, and it is not a CITES-inclusive organism. As a real scientist, I take the hard line on such things.

The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.

 

[ChrisFL]

The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.

Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.

 

[gonewild]

Totally incorrect. An organism does not exist in the binomial system until it is formally scientifically described.

So when scientists claim that rainforest destruction is destroying millions of un-described species they are not truthful? How can a species be destroyed if it does not exist?

So you would know the difference between an unidentified Laelia or Cattleya genus plant without an formal scientific description? Taxonomists still argue to this day about Catt/Laelia plants with holotypes that are how old?

So then Cattleyas and Laelias don't actually exist? If they are incorrectly described does that mean they could actually be fish?

Sorry. I stand by what I said.

Why do you apologize for standing by what you said?

 

[gonewild]

Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.

I understand your principle. I just like to argue.

But I find it amusing that scientists can't tell the difference between a plant and an animal without reading it.

 

[Gcroz]

Lance, the problem is, from a scientific perspective, they are incorrect to do so. See my above post. Again, this is purely an argument from scientific principle.

I see what you are saying Chris, and I also see what Lance is saying. I agree with both of you in certain respects. However, CITES is a Treaty and countries that are signatories have laws to enforce the treaty. The common ground is that science and law often do not "have a meeting of the minds!" While scientifically CITES may not make sense to scientists, the legal aspects make sense in the legal world. :evil:

 

[newbud]

Chris - Your line is so hard that what you are saying is this hunk of matter does not even exist in our world until some scientist describes it. That's a little too hard and besides it doesn't matter what a scientist thinks, to an officer of some countries' wildlife enforcement department he is going to see it for what it is. How can you ever suppose to change the mind of law enforcement. As Gonewild says just for the sake of argument (I'm paraphrasing). Thanks

 

[MorandiWine]

Can we all agree that it is a plant?

 

[hchan]

The problem is that CITES inspectors make an identification using "you hard line"r science when a species arrives at the international inspection table. First step in their manual says to determine if the specimen is a plant or animal. Most inspectors are probably qualified to make this determination without the use of a key. Then they must follow published species keys to determine the genus. If all species within a genus are listed by CITES they don't need to determine a species.

I want to send a triffid to the CITES inspectors.

 

[NYEric]

Me too!