silence882
January 27th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Which taxon, Paph. crossii or Paph. callosum is valid?
Braem and Senghas argue in SIDA, 2000, that Paph. crossii is valid based on descriptions by Morren in Belgique Horticole in 1865 and 1883.
Most people use Paph. callosum as described by Reichenbach fil. in The Gardener's Chronicle, 1886.
My position:
The 1883 article in Belgique Horticole by Morren shows an illustration of a plant he calls Cyp. barbatum var. crossii. Article 11.2. of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states:
In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published (but see Art. 53.4).
Therefore, the 1883 article does not support the priority of P. crossii, leaving only the 1865 article.
The 1865 article states only that the plant is from Peru (obviously an error) and named after its discoverer, Mr. Cross. Basically, the description is a color plate with the title 'Cypripedium crossii'. The plate shows a picture of a plant in flower that Braem & Senghas claim could only be what is now known as P. callosum. The plate contains no separate analysis to demonstrate distinctive characteristics (although it's not required to be by the ICBN, an analysis is generally separate from the illustration). The plant in question, although probably P. callosum, could easily be P. barbatum or even P. lawrencianum. Therefore, the description is incomplete and subsequently invalid.
The proper name of the taxon, therefore, is Paph. callosum.
--Stephen
Braem and Senghas argue in SIDA, 2000, that Paph. crossii is valid based on descriptions by Morren in Belgique Horticole in 1865 and 1883.
Most people use Paph. callosum as described by Reichenbach fil. in The Gardener's Chronicle, 1886.
My position:
The 1883 article in Belgique Horticole by Morren shows an illustration of a plant he calls Cyp. barbatum var. crossii. Article 11.2. of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states:
In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published (but see Art. 53.4).
Therefore, the 1883 article does not support the priority of P. crossii, leaving only the 1865 article.
The 1865 article states only that the plant is from Peru (obviously an error) and named after its discoverer, Mr. Cross. Basically, the description is a color plate with the title 'Cypripedium crossii'. The plate shows a picture of a plant in flower that Braem & Senghas claim could only be what is now known as P. callosum. The plate contains no separate analysis to demonstrate distinctive characteristics (although it's not required to be by the ICBN, an analysis is generally separate from the illustration). The plant in question, although probably P. callosum, could easily be P. barbatum or even P. lawrencianum. Therefore, the description is incomplete and subsequently invalid.
The proper name of the taxon, therefore, is Paph. callosum.
--Stephen