As I understand it, CITES appendix 1 plants (which includes all slippers) which have been collected from the wild cannot be legally imported into any signatory country.... If this is correct, then when the hangianum from which the original description was made flowered in Germany in 1998, wouldn't it have been an illegal plant? Or do the exceptions granted for scientific research mean that this was a legal plant, assuming the proper permits were attained?

Also, if all the permits were in order, what happens to the plant once it has been described? Is it made the type specimen or used for commercial purposes?

--Stephen

One more question! not about CITES stuff though.
Braem & Chiron, 2003 lists the elevation where P. hangianum is found at 800-1000 m.
Averyanov et al., 2003 lists the elevation as 450-750 m.

Anyone know who is right?

--Stephen

You are absolutely correct: the plant was illegal. Just like vietnamense....and kovachii.........and there were definitely no permits!

Besk

One more question! not about CITES stuff though.
Braem & Chiron, 2003 lists the elevation where P. hangianum is found at 800-1000 m.
Averyanov et al., 2003 lists the elevation as 450-750 m.

Anyone know who is right?

--Stephen

All I know is that Averyanov saw the plants in situ....................................

japan and germany seem to be rather lax about cites

japan and germany ...

hmmm... when have we seen that combination before ... AHA! ... it's the Axis conspiracy to take over the world by lax CITES enforcement!!! ... Pinky, we need to get to work quickly if we're going to take over the world first!
<They're Pinky... They're Pinky and the Brain Brain Brain Brain brain....> :-dance:

japan and germany seem to be rather lax about cites


Many of the primary hybrid containing new species like vietnamense helenae etc originates from Germany, now does that mean thy're LAx I don't know........... This is a thin ice topic

oops.
it just that i've noticed newly discovered species and hybrids on websites in those countries.
is it vietnam or taiwan that didn't sign cites?

From what I understand Taiwan is not part of Cites. The application of the Cities rules varies according to each countries interpretation, so it's not as clear as the rules spell out. Vietnam has not permitted legal exportation of it's paph species, so technically all of the recent importations are illegal.

Many of the European plants are coming via lax importation stations such as in Eastern Europe and can travel quite easily within the continent. How they can advertise hybrids of these plants or the plants themselves is beyond my understanding. Of course, this is from my frustrated American point of view regarding Cities.

The uneven application of Cities has made legal importation of Cities I plants almost impossible. This increases smuggling of these desireable plants and actually makes them more valuable and rare.

I think helenae will in the near future become legal via the same rout vietnamense got legal in the US: Propagation by seed of a legal artisan division of an impounded plant,

As I understand it, CITES appendix 1 plants (which includes all slippers) which have been collected from the wild cannot be legally imported into any signatory country.... If this is correct, then when the hangianum from which the original description was made flowered in Germany in 1998, wouldn't it have been an illegal plant? Or do the exceptions granted for scientific research mean that this was a legal plant, assuming the proper permits were attained?

Also, if all the permits were in order, what happens to the plant once it has been described? Is it made the type specimen or used for commercial purposes?

--Stephen

To answer the latter part of your question, plants that are imported for scientific research (to the US at least) MUST be destroyed after research is complete, and no part of them may ever be used for commercial purposes.

To answer the latter part of your question, plants that are imported for scientific research (to the US at least) MUST be destroyed after research is complete, and no part of them may ever be used for commercial purposes.

Very interesting, to destroy rare plant material after research...just does not make sense does it

An interesting scenerio for bringing new species into the U.S. or other countries would be to bring seed into the country, plant out as something other than what it is, grow it up and bloom it. Then invite the orchid police in to confiscate and put the plants in an orchid rescue program where they could be legally propagated and sibbed similar to the vietnamense seedlings from Antec.
Now you would have legal plants.....Of course smuggling the seed out is illegal...

The CITES is a deal for help any flora and fauna from the verge of extinction by ban international trade of wild flora and fauna!
But it’s not the rule for prohibit the ex situ conservation.
Every rare species should conserve by both in situ and ex situ conservation.
In situ conservation, we preserve thier habitat as national park or the other conservational area.
We use the nature resource at a limit point, which they are threatened with brink of extinction.
Ex situ conservation, we get the random individual of any taxa for biological study to conserve them better.
And we grow them in the captive or gardens or green houses.
You can keep thier genetic diversity.
If the rare species became extinction in the wild, we will reintroduce the captive population to thier origin like many animals and plants.

Please don’t destroy the remaining plants after you’ve made the type speciments for science.
All commercial is not bad.
Both commmercial and orchid growers with ethics can increase the power of conservation.
:?