Hello all!

New debate topic: Which has priority, Paph. markianum or Paph. tigrinum?

The issue seems to focus around the interpretation of Article 29.1 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. As I understand it, the most recent of the ICBNs, the St. Louis Code, applies retroactively to this issue. Article 29.1 is stated as:

29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, typescripts or other unpublished material, by publication online, or by dissemination of distributable electronic media.

Fowlie, on May 24, 1990 sent one copy of his description of Paph. markianum via express mail to the Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium at Harvard University and faxed a copy to Guido Braem, director of the Schlechter Institute in Germany. The description was later printed in the July issue of Orchid Digest which was mailed in August.

Koopowitz and Hasegawa published their description of Paph. tigrinum in the Orchid Advocate, which was mailed on June 4, 1990.

The big question is: Does Fowlie's distribution of his description of Paph. markianum satisfy article 29.1 or not?

If so, then markianum has priority. If not, then tigrinum has priority.

--Stephen

Regarding distribution of printed material: If Fowlie was not published until July, I think that
Koopowitz and Hasegawa are the publishers. Braem and Fowlie weren't published until August from what it looks like you've posted.

I vote tigrinum (and it's the better name, IMO!)

From the standpoint of which is more correct, I don't have a side chosen(and don't plan to).

Personally, I will never use markianum as the name. Very rarely do latin names give as vivid a mental picture as Paphiopedilum tigrinum does. I had heard the name before ever seeing a photo of the species, and knew the instant I saw it what it had to be from the name I heard earlier. I am still disappointed by the valid name of Paph. henryanum...that one had a lot of potential for Paph. leopardinum or something similar that "looks like its name".
And Bulbophyllum medusae...pretty good...but come on, who wouldn't want to own a Bulbophyllum flyingspaghettimonsterianum.

Jon

I think it depend on the define of word 'published'!
Have the copy of Fowlie's description already been published since May 24, 1990?
Is it the copy in print published, manucript or type script?
It's not the subject to choose the best sound name!
But it's a Code!
If you ignore it , you should also abandon all ICBN.

In my view, if the the copy has already published, I will use Paph markianum. :)

And Bulbophyllum medusae...pretty good...but come on, who wouldn't want to own a Bulbophyllum flyingspaghettimonsterianum.

Jon


Shouldn't it be Bulbopyllum fugaxsphagettibeluanum :D :D :D

Unfortunately, I think it will be markianum though for the reasons given above, I'd prefer tigrinum. But then it's kovachii instead of peruvianum for the same essential reasons -- who gets to the finish line first, and is recognized as such.

I like tigrinum better also.

I usually try to stay away from these types of discussions, but assuming that Stephen's information is accurate (and I'm sure that it is :) ), one needs to rule on whether proper dissemination of the description occured when Fowlie mailed his to Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium and Dr Braem. In my opinion, this does not constitute a wide enough disemination of the description to give it precedent. The code as described in the initial posting by Stephen states:
"29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally."
Note that the printed matter must be distributed to the general public OR to botanical institutions (note institutions is plural).Therefore, distribution of Fowlie's description to ONE institution and Dr. Braem would appear to be insufficient to qualify it at that particular time in May.

Assuming the Orchid Advocate had wide enough distribution, the desciption of Koopowitz and Hasegawa should take pecedent because it was distributed (June) before Fowlie's was (August).

From what I remember of the story, wasn't the Orchid Advocate mailed out a couple days before the Orchid Digest? I don't think it was mailed in August, but in June...I could be wrong though, I've gotten issues a month late before.

I thought the original argument was about the material being faxed, and that it constituted "publication". I'll have to read this again.
The above message only refers to plants in my collection, since I write the tags. I was also confused about the name flyingspaghettimonsterianum...would it be flyingspaghettimonsterii?(It's a proper name, not a description).

Jon

In my opion

the reasons to use Paph markianum
1. the emotion and attitude is nonsense in scientific world! It's not reason.
2. Its publications are distributed to the general public OR to botanical institutions in atleast 2 institutions on May 24th 1990.
and before June 4th 1990, the publication maybe distributed to the other botanical institutions.


... institutions = plural ≥ 2 institutions ....
1.Oakes Ames library at Havard university, Massachusetts, USA
2.Schlechter Institute in Germany, not Braem, he deposited it into the institution library.

How wide enough distribution of the publications do you think it should be valid?
How many institutions?
How many countries?

How many copies?

Great discussion, all.

Clarification!

I got this info from "On the Priority of Paphiopedilum markianum", by Guido Braem in Orchid Digest, 1991, pp. 58-61.

Personally, I do not think that sending one copy to Harvard and one to the Schlechter institute constitutes a wide enough distribution of material to satisfy Article 29.1. Unfortunately the code is rather vague so I imagine this argument will rage on for a long while.

Also, the author of the article, Guido Braem, makes no clear claim of depositing the description that he received in the library at the Schlechter Institute. He merely says that he received the description and that he was the director of the Institute. I find this a bit confusing, as in the past I have found Dr. Braem to be quite thorough in laying out his arguments in various books and articles that I have read.

Also, he makes an argument that the Koopowitz & Hasegawa description failed, in a minor way, to comply with article 37.3 of the code regarding the type citation. While this may be technically true (I can't say one way or the other), I believe this, in the spirit of the code, is not enough to disqualify their description.

In Braem's defense, Cribb's argument in his 1998(?) monograph that the distribution of the description was a draft not intended to be considered a valid publication, seems an outright misrepresentation of the situation. I have found that Cribb has a habit of providing very little detail (not to mention no citations) to support the claims that he makes.

Although I agree completely with paphmania that as far as priority is concerned name preference is completely beside the point, I also think tigrinum is one of the most apt names for a paph I have come across. Whoever decided micranthum (meaning small-flowered) was a good name needs to be slapped, especially considering that micranthum is among the largest flowers in the genus. (although yes, the authors may have been working with a specimen that had an aberrantly small flower, or perhaps the description was made from a dissected bud)

--Stephen

A quick addition in support of paphmania's point, Article 51:

51.1. A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known (but see Art. 56.1), or because it has lost its original meaning, or (in pleomorphic fungi with names governed by Art. 59) because the generic name does not accord with the morph represented by its type.

--Stephen

p.s. for those interested in fine print, the most recend ICBN is available here:
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0001ICSLContents.htm

This issue is still unresolved. Guido Braem admits openly that tigrinum is a far better and appropriate name, but insists that markianum has priority due to its earlier written description (by fax). Koopowitz told me several years ago at one of the GNYOS orchid shows that the issue was brought up before some decision making body, I don't know whom, but the decision was that the first description published in a printed format, not simply a fax, had priority, and therfor tigrinum was the valid name. Regardles, it seems that by default tigrinum is winning out, as that is the name used in most books and articles, not to mention common use and hybrid registration....whether that is truly valid or not, I can't say...although I use the term tigrinum myself. I read both articles myself when they were first published... there is no question that tigrinum beat markianum by at least a month. Take care, Eric

I have some last questions to solve this discussion.

Why the copy of the published description is not published?

Did Fowlie send print copies of his description of Paph. markianum via mail to the institutions other than the Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium at Harvard University before June 4th 1990 which the Paph triginum was published?

8)

It will be Paph. markianum in the Flora of China project, for the reasons discussed above. I agree with that decision. Chen Singchi -- and Cribb -- are among the coauthors of the slipper orchid section.

Besk.

Great thread. I think that the Article 29.1 is a little ambiguous, as most "rules" are. But this phrase "to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally" seems to be the defining factor for me. When Fowlie sent out his descriptions, were they made available to the general public or to general botanists? Can anyone just waltz into Harvard U or the Schlechter Inst. and get their hands on his publication? It seems to me that this does not fall well within the category of "general public" or even "botanists generally." So therefore I vote for Tigrinum.

For waht is worth: as of today the gatekeepers at Kew call Paphiopedilum tigrinum Koop. & N.Haseg., Orchid Advocate 16: 78 (1990). as accepted.

Again for what is worth: AOS has designated the Database at KEW as their arbiter for valid species name when it comes to AOS awards and publications.

And for what is worth: while the rule may be ambigious in its writting. The interpretation via examples that accompany the rules is not. TRANSMITION by FAX is one of those electronic ways not consiodered valid, nor is transmition of an unpublished (as in non book, journal, magazine ) form. The transmition of an unlublished article via fax or via mail noty in a magazine or in a book or in a journal doesnt fit the valid examples set for in the Rules. Also, they fall under the unambigous determination set in rule 30.1 and its examples.

30.1. Publication by indelible autograph before 1 January 1953 is effective. Indelible autograph produced at a later date is not effectively published.


And finally, for waht is worth:

31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in the printed matter must be accepted as correct.

Sending a manuscript to a couple of friends may have sufficed for "publication" a hundred years ago but not today or in the l990's. I can only imagine why Cribb and others would use a name based on a manuscript priority, but such a name is not validly published. In this case I believe that usage will determine which of the two names will persist and I believe that it will be Paph tiginum.
Dean Stock

This has indeed been an interesting study, and I am still not sure if there is a right answer. I tend to agree with the definition of "published" as being more widespread...but don't know who's definition of "published" is to be used, and think this one word is what is gumming up the whole thing.

In the event of such confusion, emotions and the like should not have validity and science should prevail....but, sometimes they do and the properness of a name is left to the wayside. Who here uses the names Paph. crossii for callosum or Phrag. wallisii for the dark form of caudatum? I don't, and for personal preferences. When the majority has these preferences, they sometimes prevail over what is scientifically correct (and not just orchids, fish people are just as guilty as I am finding out in my new side hobby).

Jon

Markianum is the correct name. It was published first under the rules of the ICBN. There is no wiggle room here about it. The only exception I see is that tigrinum is a more popular synonym, which of course means nothing.

Unfortunately, when it comes to nomenclature, we cannot rely on science as a hard and fast arbitrater for a touchy situation such as this. Here, we are dealing with the language of science. Whatever tigrinum/markianum is named, it is still the same organism....we are just arguing over language and protocol. To be quite honest, this is a clear cut scientific issue.....we are dealing with a specific, definable entity...this is a paph that will not be confused with any other paph...., but, 20 years from now, we will probably still be arguing over what to call it. Far more difficult to deal with is the species concept...unlike other issues in science, the species concept cannot be clearly delineated all of the time...species don't read or follow rules...and when you deal with 2 organisms that are in the process of speciation, at what point do you decide that they have fully separated into different species? Look at malipoense/jackii.....lowii/richardianum/lynniae...I agree with Braem's concept of just considering these "species" as complexes, in the process of speciation. Take care, Eric