re Paphiopedilum smaradignum.

Hi

Paph Smaragdinum is a complex hybrid. (info drawn from RHS web site at http://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/registration_orchids.asp )

It's parents are regsitered as Hera X Troilus
and the plant was registered in 1912

I have no picture though.

Cheers
Stephan

That is what I thought also. But look at what I found at KEW's


Paphiopedilum smaragdinum Z.J.Liu & S.C.Chen, J. Wuhan Bot. Res. 21: 489 (2003).
This name is accepted.

To say I am confused is to be gentle with me.[/b]

Ummmm what Stephan said.

Also, the album form of P. tigrinum is P. tigrinum fma. smaragdinum.

--Stephen

In the following sketch you can see that this is only a Paphiopedilum tigrinum. In the description you can read that the colour is greenish white. The sketch was a part of the publication in Journal Wuhan Bot.Res. 2003

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/og48/Phragmipedium/Paph.jpg

So the officially described taxon was transferred to a forma of Paph. tigrinum.
You can find a picture of in the last edition of The Orchid Digest.

Best greetings

Olaf

So the people at Kew (who accept this at the species level ) are one behind the 8 ball ?..... :shock: :shock: :shock: :evil: :D

Ty for the information.

Jose

Dear Jose,
Kew has accepted it only as a guilty description. It was not a decision if it is really a distinct species which shall be accapted.

You can see this also with the two descriptions of the same plant
Paphiopedilum X areeanum and Paph. rhizomatosum.

Best greetings

Olaf

Gotta love this forum!!!

Thanks Olaf and Stephen :) Thanks to to Jose for raising this.

Cheers
Stephan

I should thank the founder, the moderators , the participants in this Forum specially the one that invited me . Wowza!!! am I learning a lot.

Picture me :-dance: :-dance: :-dance: :-dance:

www.ipni.org lists *VALIDLY published* names in the Kew and other databases -- remember, NOMENCLATURE (proper description and prioity of a name) has nothing necessarily to do with TAXONOMY (the system by which names are accepted into a classification). So Paph smaragdinum may be validly publshed and in Kew Record, but that doesn't mean anybody needs to accept it. For example, you don't have to accept Paph jackii if you don't want to, since jackii has been transferred to a var. of malipoense -- you choose which to accept! You don't need to accept hangianum either -- you can just say it is a synonym of emersonii, if you are so inclined!

Nomenclature is for bookkeepers; taxonomy (classification) is (usually) for people who want to throw up their arms and say 'I believe', so long as they use valid names with proper priority.

The real thing: slippers are united by evolutionary history, and you'd better follow that in ANY classification. Classifications are for convenience; evolution is for real.

Besk

...evolution is for real.


OKies I know I am going to get it: Isnt't there genetic eveidence that the diandrous taxons we call Orchids in this forum are not part of the Orchidaceae? So if evolution is real.... :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Please be gentle with me. Let's say I am in a hyper questioning mode the direct result of trying to tutor a younglin (actually a teen) in the subtle art of logic.]

The Apostasioideae and Cypripedioideae are both monophyletic (each have unique origins). So have *most* other Orchidaceae. If it were that simple, and it ain't, it could just as well be Apostasiaceae, Cypripediaceae, and Orchidaceae, as is sometimes proposed. BUT, DNA evidence now suggests that the vanilla group (monandrous) lies in between the apostasioids and slippers. To show this set of groupings in parenthetical format: (apostasioids(vanilloids(slippers(rest of orchids)))). So, by the principle of monophyly, if we want Apostasiaceae, Cypripediaceae, and Orchidaceae, then we also need a "Vanillaceae". Or, one could have Apostasiaceae + the rest .... or Apostasiaceae, Vanillaceae + the rest ... BUT, I hope you get my point that it's phylogeny that matters, not the names and their ranks!

Best from Besk

Yes you have.
As I said I have been dealing with a rebellious teen. (that and erasing a lot of Orchid related files from my archives...lets say erasing more than 20 years of work kind of gives you a weird feeling) I felt a tad fiesty.
Ty for your patience

Jose

Hi Besk. Your message was clear but I would add that todays phylogeny is tomorrows bird cage bottom. Phylogeny or our perception of it changes just about as quickly as does nomenclature and taxonomy. Our tiny knowledge of DNA relationships at present reveal only the tip of the "iceberg". How does one talk about or describe phylogeny without taxonomy and how does one create taxonomy without nomenclatorial housekeeping. To simply brush off these pursuits as something less noble than PHYLOGENY is somewhat (i'm being kind) eliteist. I do agree that a taxonomy based on phylogenetic relationships, as we understand them at any particular time, is the only way to proceed.
Dean Stock

Hi Stock,

Phylogenies based on molecular data are rather stable these days at lower levels such as within Orchidaceae and Cypripedioideae. Thus far, the slippers have been looked at extensively with 2 independent loci, and both agree fairly well (one of these is not published). True enough, data are still equivocal about whether Mexipedium is the sister genus to Paphiopedilum, Phragmipedium, or to both -- and this indeed reflects your point! Nonetheless, a classification based on phylogeny should always be most stable, and presence of objective evidence for phylogeny is better than absence of it, even if it is incomplete. That's not to say that stories can't change, esp. when we get close to the population level, or when past reticulation has occurred that can mislead. But that's why scientists are developing multiple markers that should be valuable at both the population and phylogenetic levels, e.g., nuclear microsatellites in coding sequences. When these are studied on a mass scale, which would cost ca. $3K to set up for further work, one can study how many, many loci have coalesced over time and see if these individual 'gene trees' match what sequence analysis is saying today. And yes, controversies remain even with massive-scale level of whole genomes -- phylogeny is still equivocal about the Coelomata versus Ecdysozoa alternatives for animal relationships, and unfortunately this has a lot to do with taxon sampling (too many lineages have gone extinct!) and vast time since divergence (pre-Cambrian, Cambrian).

Re: classification and nomenclature, I think you read me wrong. For the latter, I am 100% for the rules of botanical nomenclature -- we would be lost without them. I am not a proponent of the so-called 'phylocode', which can indeed (!) cause unreasonable change over time. For classification, we obviously need it to describe the world. My point was that using Parvisepalum (e.g.) at the subgenus vs. section level doesn't matter so long as the group is monophyletic. And, that it's the taxonomist's *choice* whether to recognize jackii as a species or a variety. A phylogeny doesn't make the choice of rank; it gives you the chance to identify units that reflect evolutionary history. One man's species vs. another's variety only matters for the sake of consistency, but as you know, there is none in the world of slippers!

That's all for now...

All best from Besk

Thanks for the comments Besk! Your points are well made and I agree. It is great that we now have enough DNA data that major phylogenetic issues are being resolved. One has only to think back a few years when this was not the case.
Dean Stock