They reckoned friends, I want to expose a question that can be disturbs but your opinion interests me
¿With which clasificacion they are but in agreement, with the one that proposes Cribb or as what propose Karasawa & Saito? I by my part believe that that of Cribb is the but adequate. I believe that to divide the I generate in so many sub-generes, sections, sub-sections, complex and species as propose Karasawa & Saito is excessively complex since in some alone time a species has a section or sub-section for her alone. I like to know your idea.
Greetings to all

That might be an interesting topic to discuss. My books are still in boxes but I don't think I have anything that summarizes Karasawa and Saito's classifications anyway. Can anyone provide a link?

Mark

Great topic, but unfortunately I don't have the study that Karasawa and Saito published. Braem, however, adopts a similarly complicated structure.

I prefer somewhat of a middle ground. I like the division into 6 subgenera rather than 3, but all the sections and subsections seem excessive. Until I get the literature of Karasawa and Saito from 1982, and the study by Cox et al, I can't make a good argument for or against the complicated hierarchy.

--Stephen

It's an interesting question, I for one would also like a link as I haven't heard the alternative arguement (and I am a student judge - so I would like to know).

I don't think that it should be too complex but usually people requesting things be more complex are scientists.

A link........please???

Thanks

Bolero

It's an interesting question, I for one would also like a link as I haven't heard the alternative arguement (and I am a student judge - so I would like to know).

I don't think that it should be too complex but usually people requesting things be more complex are scientists.

A link........please???

Thanks

Bolero

I'm a scientist, and I wish it were less complex...

I am not a taxonomist, nor do I play one on television, but I tend to take a more conservative approach. I do not like Braem's concept of a 'complex' in the cochlopetalum group, that doesn't make any sense to me. It is either a hybrid swarm or a few distinct species, take your pick. I have some issues with Cribb, as well. I don't know anything about Karasawa and Saito.

I'm not uncomfortable holding two opposite views in my head simultaneously (to loosely paraphrase a famous author...). So I just try to learn as much as I can from anybody who seems to know what they are doing. Eventually I might come to a decision on my own. But that is the way any science works, the best you can do as an author is present the evidence and your interpretation, it is up to the rest of the community to decide if you are right or not.

There are some interesting molecular taxonomy efforts going on right now, and even some work in the paphiopedilum. I believe some of this has been published, but I haven't seen the papers. The hardest part, as far as I know, is getting the appropriate reference specimens. Ideally these would be specimens derived from plants in their habitat. Of course CITES makes this hard...

Hi -

I can refer you to the following DNA study, by Cox et al., available as a PDF for purchase from Springer Verlag: http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=1c9ff39c562f4090a99f6b517468 2388&referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,4;

You can find the phylogenetic tree from that paper, without all the discussion, at
http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/ibis/slipper_taxonomy/slipper.html

The phylogenetic tree you'll see is much better resolved than it deserves to be. Careful analysis of the sequences used (as available in GenBank) reveals many equally most-parsimonious solutions within some of the groups. Most notable among these are the Barbata Paphs, the largest group in the genus, and, from the DNA, the least diverged genetically. It would seem that the Barbata Paphs may be much more recent than the rest, possibly evolving as local population segregates following interglacial sea-level rises.

Other DNA studies of a more limited nature have been published in Lindleyana by Albert (e.g., Mexipedium); Williams et al. published on Phrag kovachii in Orchids; and genomic microsatellite markers are being developed in several places.

Karasawa and Saito were cytogeneticists, and made their classification largely based on chromosomal features + a largely splitter view of morphology. Re: Cochlopetalum, they grouped the taxa according to chromosomes.

As I've said in the Taxonomy train, there can be no one classification that is correct. Classification involves shifting (valid!) names around according to choice. Braem makes his, Cribb another. Neither has the final word. Only evolutionary history links the entities we call "hangianum" and "emersonii" (e.g.), and data that could address such issues may or may not suggest lineages (species, or groups of species) that are genetically isolated from others.

The diversity of the slipper orchids is fascinating!

best from Beskriver