So, what's the story on Phragmipedium popowii? Will all the warscewiczii cross registrations be changed to reflect the corrected parentage? Where there other specific name changes?

I somewhat doubt that P. popowii and the renamed P. wallisii will be adopted.

Robert Dressler makes a great point in his recent article in the OD:

"They seem to be unaware of Article 57 of the Code of Botanical Nomenclature, which states: 'A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be sued in a sense that conflicts with current useage unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 14.1 or 56.1 has been submitted and rejected.' Certainly the name P. warszewiczianum has been widely and persistently used for the Chinela [local name for P. warszewiczianum], and its application to what we have known for abotu 130 years as P. wallisii can only case more confusion. At this point, I think it best to follow the Code and use the oldest specific epithet for each species."

So, what's the story on Phragmipedium popowii? Will all the warscewiczii cross registrations be changed to reflect the corrected parentage? Where there other specific name changes?

Well, I'm good friends with one of the authors of the mess... But yes, as far as I know, popowii is now the accepted name for RHS registration. They have been changing everything else (Paph wilhelminiae hybrids, for example), so I don't know why they wouldn't change this.

As to whether it is 'accepted' by the community or not, well, that is another story. It makes good scientific sense to me, but I'm not a taxonomist. And I hate changing tags. So, who knows?

Why do they have to change their names for? Why cause more confusion unneccesarily? :confused:

Why do they have to change their names for? Why cause more confusion unneccesarily? :confused:

Because it is the right thing to do? *grin* Actually, in some cases name changes make sense. For example, separating the Encyclia from the Epidendrums. That made a lot of sense, they are very different in growth habit. Now, of course, they are further mucking even that up, and I'm not changing my Epi. cochleata tag again. I changed it to Enc. cochleata. I'm not changing it to Prosthechia (or whatever the heck it is).

That said, I don't think changing the name of popowii is a good idea. Dressler's point of warcewiczii being a commonly accepted name is very good (even if I can't spell it). But I still think the RHS is accepting popowii for registration, and while they aren't a taxonomic authority, that doesn't matter much for most people.

Just like Rob said:



"at least I can spell it" :thumbsup:

Why do they have to change their names for? Why cause more confusion unneccesarily? :confused:

I agree!
Example: People who have purchased Susan Booth in the past and the parents are listed as roths x praestans; are now scrambling to find out if their praestans is wilhelminae. This makes the plant William Ambler!
Many people don't have the backgrounds of the parents! So now future breeding is definitely going to muck up :lol: the proper nomenclature.
I spoke with Lance Birk at the 'Fascination in Orchids Show in Anaheim this past February. We both agree that when registering a new cross with RHS in the future; the picture of both parents should be kept on file. This would at least control to some degree the future nomenclature.

Has Phrag wallisii been renamed? Gosh this gets confusing.... :?

Honestly, Wendy, for sure? I've no idea! When does this become set in stone? Or will/does it ever? :confused:

This is the same thing that happens in all hobbies that deals with scientific nomenclature.....fish, frogs, snakes, etc....Some changes make sense and some don't. Eventually I will learn the what the changes are just in time for them to change again, but this is the way it is and we need to just face it and accept it.

But yes, as far as I know, popowii is now the accepted name for RHS registration.

Dear Littelfrog,
where did you get the information about acceptance of Phrag. popowii? I could not find anything about in The Orchid Review and I cannot believe that it will done.
When it would be accepted then it is clear that also all hybrids with wallisiii must be changed and so on.

Perhaps you have a more actual information then me, I am waiting for.

Best greetings

Olaf

But yes, as far as I know, popowii is now the accepted name for RHS registration.

Dear Littelfrog,
where did you get the information about acceptance of Phrag. popowii? I could not find anything about in The Orchid Review and I cannot believe that it will done.
When it would be accepted then it is clear that also all hybrids with wallisiii must be changed and so on.

Perhaps you have a more actual information then me, I am waiting for.

Best greetings

Olaf

Jerry Fischer, I think. That isn't set in stone, but if I recall, he was discussing at least one hybrid that he said had been accepted as P. popowii cross by the RHS. I presumed he was the originator of the hybrid, and had submitted the registration paperwork, and had been approved. That is all I know. And I may not be remembering it properly, at that. I haven't seen anything more formal than that, though.

Rob

Dear Rob,
I asked the orchid Registrar and Julian Shaw wrote that he have no record of Phrag. popowii at all and that it certainly is not in the register as a grex parent

Best greetings

Olaf

Dear Rob,
I asked the orchid Registrar and Julian Shaw wrote that he have no record of Phrag. popowii at all and that it certainly is not in the register as a grex parent

Best greetings

Olaf

I must say I'm a little relieved... I'm not sure I'm up for the mess when (and if) RHS accepts it. Maybe we should make history and register popowii x kovachii. *grin*

have no record of Phrag. popowii at all and that it certainly is not in the register as a grex parent

(Since Rob said it first...)

WHEW!

can someone please enlighten me on this entire warscewiczianum/wallisii/popowii business. i guess i'm out of the loop.

See the topic I wrote called "Phragmipedium section Phragmipedium" in this part of the forum.

Rob Zuiderwijk

E-Mail : rob_zuiderwijk@phragweb.info
Website : PhragWeb - The Phragmipedium WebSite.
(http://www.phragweb.info)

http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150&highlight=

thank you for the links. It appears i actually posted in that thread. I must be losing my mind. stupid slippers did it. I await a scan of the check for 10,000 dollars or pounds or deutschmarks that Mr. Popow wrote.

OK here is my take on Phrag. popowii.

I may be a little biased as I was one of the authors (together with Guido Braem and Sandy Ohlund). I agree it is kind of confusing and I apologize for that. Guido wanted my input as he knew we have all of the species growing here in our greenhouse.

Anyway,.....

Here it is in a nutshell:

Guido found out that when Reichenbach originally was describing a species that he gave the name "Phrag. warscewiczianum" in 1850, he was actually describing a plant native to South America that we now know as "Phrag. wallisii". What we have "wrongly" been calling Phrag. warscewicaianum is the darker and more compact species, native to Central America. How did Guido find this out, well that is because a picture exists of the plant that Reichenbach used to make the original description of Phrag. warscewiczianum, and it clearly is the lighter colored form aka Phrag wallisii.

see picture below (from our article The Real Phragmipedium Warscewiczianum A Clarification of the Phragmipedium caudatum Complex (Phragmipedium section Phragmipedium) Orquideologia XXIII (2), 2004:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/drorchid/Pwars.jpg

About 20 years later Reichenbach made a second description of a South American plant, not realizing it was the same plant he had described 20 years earlier and gave it the name Phrag. wallisii. This means that the two are synonyms and as he used the name Phrag. warscewiczianum first this means that it is the valid name for what we have later been calling Phrag. wallisii.

Why and how we have been naming the Central American species Phrag warscewiczianum is one of life's mysteries. The Central American species had never officially been described as a species. Atwood and Dressler came to the same conclusion, but unfortunately misread Reichenbach's original descriptions, and misread that he had described and named the Central American plant as Phrag. humboldtii, which Reichenbach never had. This is why we had to officially describe the Central American species and named it Phrag. popowii.

I know this creates a lot of confusion, but we were just trying to point out the mistake that Reichenbach had made, and that he was the one that had originally named the South American species (formerly known as P. wallisii) Phrag. warscewiczianum. We are not the ones that are renaming Phrag wallisii to Phrag. warscewiczianum, but are just pointing out that it was the original name for this species.

Now as far as the RHS goes, I have not heard yet if they have accepted Phrag. popowii as a name yet....only the future shall see....


Robert

Oeps, I see I misspelled warscewiczianum.....it is one of the most difficult names to spell correctly; especially if you are trying to type fast!!


Robert

Robert,
Thank you for that perspective and explanation. One thing I've often noticed reading online discussions, is that we everyday hobbyists are quick to gripe about the possibility of names changing around, but rarely (if ever) have I seen people such as yourself and Olaf weighing in on discussions. Except here!
I always get very excited at the prospects of growers/breeders/taxonomists such as yourself joining the forum and adding to the discussions because I learn so much that isn't necessarily available in the mainstream. It is important to learn the why and the history - for me, it makes some of these potential changes more acceptable, understanding the stories behind them.

I somewhat doubt that P. popowii and the renamed P. wallisii will be adopted.

Robert Dressler makes a great point in his recent article in the OD:

"They seem to be unaware of Article 57 of the Code of Botanical Nomenclature, which states: 'A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be sued in a sense that conflicts with current useage unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 14.1 or 56.1 has been submitted and rejected.' Certainly the name P. warszewiczianum has been widely and persistently used for the Chinela [local name for P. warszewiczianum], and its application to what we have known for abotu 130 years as P. wallisii can only case more confusion. At this point, I think it best to follow the Code and use the oldest specific epithet for each species."

In regard to the above:

If you follow the Code and use the oldest specific epithet, the name "wallisii" becomes invalid and you should use the name "warscewiczianum" for the South American species, as when Reichenbach first was describing the South American species that is the first name that he used.

In Regard to Article 57 this does not apply here. It would apply, when describing the Central American species, which has never officially been described as a species, and we would give it the name Phrag. wallisii. This would go against Article 57, as the name wallisii has widely and persistently been used for a different taxa, so you cannot use this name to describe a new species......Do you see the difference??

In regard to the other 3 species or taxa in the caudatum group I kind of agree with Dressler, but yet on the other hand disagree. The 5 taxa are:

1 Phrag. caudatum
2 Phrag. warscewiczianum (fromely known as Phrag. wallisii)
3 Phrag. lindenii
4 Phrag. popowii
5 Phrag. exstaminodium

Phrag. caudatum is easy and stands on it's own (although there may be some different varieties within this species, but further studies need to be done to verify this)

I do agree with Dressler that Phrag. lindenii and Phrag. warscewiczianum are closely related. The major difference is that lindenii is missing it's pouch, and instead has an extra petal, and instead of 2 pollinia it has 3 pollinia, which causes it to selfpollinate. lindenii was probably derived from warscewiczianum at one point, but now it is an autogamous species and stands on it's own. As it selfpollinates and there is probably geographic isolation, there is probably no gene flow going on between it and warscewiczianum.

The same is true for Phrag. popowii and Phrag. exstaminodium. Both of these are growing in Central America, and only differ by the fact that Phrag. exstaminodium is lacking a staiminodal shield. Both populations are isolated, and the fact that exstaminodium selfpollinates, while popowii does not, warrants to call them separate species.

Now separating those closely related taxa and naming them differnt species or sub-species or even varieties is in the eye of the beholder (or the taxonomist). After a lot of deliberation we decided to give all 5 taxa separate species levels. If we would choose lindenii and warscewiczianum to be the same species, but one being a subspecies of the other, and do the same for popowii and exstaminodium it would lead to the following: (and this is more or less what Dressler did):

3 species:

1 Phrag. caudatum
2 Phrag. lindenii
2A lindenii subsp. lindenii
2B lindenii subsp. warscewiczianum
3 Phrag. exstaminodium
3A exstaminodium subsp. exstaminodium
3B exstaminodium subsp. popowii

We did not like this idea at all. Because lindenii and exstaminodium were described before warscewiczianum and popowii, they would automatically get the species name (according to the code), and we did not like the idea of giving the South American species (formerly known as wallisii) the name of lindenii and the same is true for the Central American species, we did not want to give it the name of it's "mutant" sister species.

So that is why we gave them 5 separate species names, and kept it cleaner; after all they are all very distinct; so that is how we came up with:

1 Phrag. caudatum
2 Phrag. warscewiczianum (fromely known as Phrag. wallisii)
3 Phrag. lindenii
4 Phrag. popowii (a species that had never officially been described, and was formely known in the public as Phrag. warscewiczianum or Phrag. caudatum var. warscewiczianum)
5 Phrag. exstaminodium


I just wanted to show you how the minds of the taxonomists were working, and hope it cleared some things up.

Take care,

Robert

Wow!
Okay, that makes a lot of sense (to me!)

So, a genetics/evolution question:

Are lindenii and exstaminodium the evolutionary "better" more evolved species as mutants that can self pollinate? Do we have a time frame on their development?

And what about fischeri - where's that other thread....what's up w/ that staminoid?
http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24355#24355

Are these self-pollinators mutating as a means of survival of the fittest?

My post from the other thread, Dear Paphgirl:

Hi Paphgirl --

There is no reason to think of exstaminodium or lindenii as more advanced since they self. Missing a staminode or a pouch could well be caused by mutations in single genes. In fact, I'd be surprised if that weren't the case. As such, exstaminodium and lindenii could have evolved 'immediately' from their normal progenitor phrags. The new changes would become fixed genetically and persist in nature since the plants are obligate selfers and don't need pollinators to make more of themselves. In terms of time frame, single genes mutate all the time -- it's all about whether or not the phenotypes that derive can survive and perpetuate -- or not. So with exstaminodium and lindenii, this could have occurred very recently.

Regarding Phrag popowii -- regardless of whether article 57 supports this or that, it is considered 'poor form' in the taxonomic community (in terms of ethical stylistics) to name a plant after yourself or a friend (or similar) if a name had already been suggested by someone else, perhaps long ago, but not validly published -- this older informal name could simply be officially validated. Popow had nothing to do with the wallisii issue. Take the case of Paph supardii, which could have been validated as devogelii.

Best wishes!

Oh yes, I did see that, thanks Besk. I find this fascinating!!

OK, now to make my gripe a little more formal, but hopefully easy to understand:

Phragmipedium humboldtii ( Warsz.ex Rchb.f. ) J.T.Atwood & Dressler was transferred from Cyp to Phrag in 1998/9 by the latter two authors, who were merely trying to validate a MUCH older Reichenbach name. As it states in the Phrag humboldtii entry in www.ipni.org, according to G. J. Braem & S. Ohlund (Orquideologia 23(2): 137-152. 2004), the basionym Cypripedium humboltii Rchb. f. was not validly published. Atwood and Dressler transferred Cyp humboldtii to Phrag using proper nomenclatural procedure; if they did so not recognizing that the 'type' for Phrag humboldtii, Cyp humboldtii, was not validly described, the most pleasant thing to have done would have been to provide a new Latin description for the plant in question using Reichenbach's chosen species name, which he attributed to an informal use by Warscewicz in the first place (see on 'ex' below). I don't think Atwood and Dressler cared so much that their names would appear forever as authors of the Cyp-to-Phrag transfer -- my guess is that they merely wished to straighten up a taxonomic issue with what they thought was proper nomenclature. If Braem and Ohlund had done what I call 'the pleasant thing', they could have named the plant Phrag humboldtii and preserved an old species epithet that, even if improperly applied hundreds of years ago, has great historical precedent (Humboldt was a VERY important early plant explorer in the Neotropics). In other words, I don't really care if "Atwood and Dressler .... unfortunately misread Reichenbach's original descriptions, and misread that he had described and named the Central American plant as Phrag. humboldtii, which Reichenbach never had..." -- Mr. Popow's name on the plant seems very contrived, albeit certainly not as contentious as kovachii vs. peruvianum!

So, with a new Latin description, the plant could just as easily have been named Phragmipedium humboldtii J.T.Atwood & Dressler ex G. J. Braem & S. Ohlund
-- syn. Phragmipedium humboldtii ( Warsz.ex Rchb.f. ) J.T.Atwood & Dressler ex G. J. Braem & S. Ohlund

The 'ex' simply means that the authors before the 'ex' were the people that suggested the name 'humboldtii' for the plant in question. The synonymy I list simply refers to Braem and Ohlund's view that the Reichenbach name had been misapplied.

The name humboldtii still would have been validated, Braem and Ohlund given proper credit, and the problem (if there were any) with Reichenbach's original description resolved either way. Atwood and Dressler or Braem and Ohlund get the name depending on whether you accept the Reichenbach description.

Sorry, drorchid, but that's the way Beskriver sees it! Believe it or not, I hadn't known about the name popowii until reading about it in this Forum! I hope you can respect my openness with my opinion.

Best from Besk[/i]

Dear Beskriver,

I fully respect your openness with your opinion, and fully agree with you; If it would have been all up to me I would not have given it the name "popowii", and I agree that "humboldtii" would have been more appropriate; actually my favorite name was "mesoamericanum" referring to the fact that this species was native to Central America (and than you did not have to deal with the politics of naming the species after a certain person). When it came to the naming I just gave suggestions to Guido, but it was Guido Braem who made the final naming of this species (as Popow is a good friend of his, and he wanted to honor him).

So here it is proven that even in the orchid world you have to deal with politics!

Robert

Dear dr

Thanks for your candor on the subject. I'm glad you felt pretty much the same, and am glad you didn't take any offense. It's also nice to see your own opinion for the record re: Guido and Mr. Popow! If I may ask, how did you get hooked up with Braem and the Phrag popowii issue?

All best regards, Beskriver

As I mentioned before I work for Jerry Fischer here at Orchids Limited. Guido corresponds with us once in a while. He emailed me once and wanted my input in the whole matter, including some pictures and descriptions of the species, as he knew that we have all of the 5 long petalled species growing here at the greenhouse. I agreed, as I thought it was an interesting subject, and I have a little bit of a Plant Taxonomic background. When I did my Masters degree, I took a Minor in Plant Taxonomy. So, in return I asked if I could be one of the authors (as I put my time into it as well). As both he and Sandy had been working on the paper for a while, I did not feel it was my place to put too much pressure on deciding what the final name of the species should be, so I left that to Guido to decide (although, like I said earlier, I did give him some suggestions).

Regards,

Robert