The case of dueling Autorities:

The AOS has determined that when it comes to species nomenclature the World Checkchecklist of the Monocotyledons mantained by Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew is the final arbiter.

2- For [purposes of Orchid Hybrid Registration , the International Registrar is the final arbiter.

So waht happens when both autorities take positions that are not compatible with each others>

For examples

For Kew : Paphiopedilum lynniae Garay, Lindleyana 11: 233 (1996).
is a synonym with the Kew accepted name being Paphiopedilum lowii var. lynniae (Garay) O.Gruss & Roeth, Orchidee (Hamburg) 48: 72 (1997). This while the International Registrar accepts lynnae for registration purposes. There are other cases with othefr Paphiopedilum species

For Kew Bulbophyllum spiesii is a synonym of fletchnerianum yet the International registrar accepts both names ( that is it considers them different species).

The genus Tolumnia is not accepted by Kew ( Tolumnias are oncidiums) yet Tolumnia is used for registration purposes.


So te question is..at AOS sghows, when stating the parentage of hybrids whose aithority is accepted...Kews nomenclature or the International Registrar?



PS

On another subject..the comments by Mr Shaw regarding the ...leoulus ending for species names in the last Registrar's Notes are worth reading.

Obviously this is a question that has no easy answer. Having to decide between taxonomist(s) and registrars is very difficult, and this is causing a lot of problems both with species and hybrids. Old hybrids are being renamed or synonyms are being split into multiple entities, i.e. paph Susan Booth and the various versions of what we call glanduliferum/praestans, etc. The original crosses have been made with different "versions" of the species and used in subsequent crosses. So, the parentage of many hybrids is incorrect according to today's standards.

Taxonomists will constantly rework their opinions based on new information, other authors and archives. The RHS registrar needs to stay consistent so we can understand the intent of the combination of parents that form each grex. When the registrar starts to change things, our points of reference change and we begin to form an incoherent mess.

In my opinion, let the taxonomists do whatever they are going to do anyway and change names, combine, split and reorganize species concepts. If the AOS agrees with that concept then we will identify the plants per the new ideas.

As far as the RHS registrar in concerned, they should stick with tradition so we can make some sense out of this cesspool. If we go back and start changing genus and species names, the entire Sanders library will have to be re-written or plants will be misidentified worse than they already are.

If a species is awarded, it needs to be identified by a taxonomic authority. The taxonomists can call it whatever they want to based on their knowledge, and that can vary depending on who performs the analysis. Also, the opinion can be changed at some later point and the original decision will be on the books as plant A when it is now viewed as plant B.

A lovely can of worms, and I don't see a resolution of the problem. AOS judges are caught in the middle and have to make a judgement call based on their experience, and that will vary according to each judging team.

The AOS has not come to a decision regarding the Monocot checklist. Disputes over species validity are currently determined by experts in the U.S.

Actually the AOS has recently approved the Kew monocot list and so it is the official guide for species names and synonyms. In the recent AQ ,usage of new names are included along with past synonyms. It's all a bit confusing to keep changing names, but our understanding of species relationships keep changing.