A ramble:

What do folks out there think about the discreteness of Paph hangianum from emersonii, and Paph jackii from malipoense? In the case of the latter, I know that jackii selfed breeds true. But species and phenotypes are different things, and genotypes make phenotypes, and selfed genotypes can lead to true-bred phenotypes if the parent plant was pretty homozygous for its traits. Had jackii been a "hybrid", when selfed one could expect some "sorting out" to the parental forms in the 2nd generation. That's genetics. So, jackii, if not a "species", sure is genetically depauperate in terms of internal variation. Probably a very narrow endemic with very small in-bred populations. But then what about the variation we see among jackii clones? And among hangianum clones? I don't know if hangianum selfs true, but I'd be interested to know. Remember, genetic variation in terms of populations restricted by gene flow barriers are much more important in terms of breeding AND conservation than what the plants' names are!

Check out Parkside's newsletter. John was at the Taiwan Show about a month ago and he mentioned a hangianum at the show but was disqualified for some rreason. Other than that, I don't know much about these plants because I grow mainly the multiflorals. I do have a malipoense purchased last year and it is very slow growing. It arrived in bud but I accidently broke the spike. :(

A ramble:

What do folks out there think about the discreteness of Paph hangianum from emersonii, and Paph jackii from malipoense? In the case of the latter, I know that jackii selfed breeds true. But species and phenotypes are different things, and genotypes make phenotypes, and selfed genotypes can lead to true-bred phenotypes if the parent plant was pretty homozygous for its traits. Had jackii been a "hybrid", when selfed one could expect some "sorting out" to the parental forms in the 2nd generation. That's genetics. So, jackii, if not a "species", sure is genetically depauperate in terms of internal variation. Probably a very narrow endemic with very small in-bred populations. But then what about the variation we see among jackii clones? And among hangianum clones? I don't know if hangianum selfs true, but I'd be interested to know. Remember, genetic variation in terms of populations restricted by gene flow barriers are much more important in terms of breeding AND conservation than what the plants' names are!

Haven't seen enough of the new ones to know for sure. I'm a self professed lumper, though. I'd tend towards varietal status if given that authority.

As a somewhat aside... Based on some recent lectures (Hirtz, and others), I'm starting to have some serious doubts about the validity of many of the species concepts out there for orchids. This is my own interpretation, they came up with different hypotheses... But I think a lot of the 'species' we have described represent a range of phenotypic variation, with islands of local similarity. Those local islands may be (and probably are) inbred, with different allelic frequencies. For example, in paphs we have glaucophyllum, chamberianianum, primulinum, and moquettianum. All are reasonably distinct, but I'd wager we could line breed any one of those species into looking just like a wild type for any other species. Or close enough as to make no difference. It might take a few generations, but the material is there.

What it really boils down to is that in many areas of the world, and for many orchid groups, evolution is really kicking up its heels. We are in the midst of the chaos that is active speciation. It is difficult to tell which dog is winning when they are fighting, but easy after they are done... Same with orchids. We are trying to describe 'species' that aren't quite ready yet. But we have a burning desire to put labels on things.

jackii from malipoense, I would consider on a variety. How many locations is jackii found in?

hangianum I consider an entirely seperate species from emersonii. I have seen emersonii f. album, and the three other varieties, and none of them resemble hangianum close enough in my opinion. Not to mention, have you ever seen an emersonii with nearly as good form as Avery Chan's hangianum 'perfection III'?

Jackii and Malipoense are very similar and even smell the same. I tend to list it as a variety...but I am a lumper as well.

I think you ment to write Huonglanae instead of Hangianum...since hangianum is a good bit different from emersonii when the two are compared in person...but I would say they look like close cousins. Hangianum does look scarily similar to the hybrid Mem. Larry Heuer though...and this makes me think it may be a natural hybrid. Huonglanae is identical with emersonii IMO and I can't seem to find a description that makes a valid point of difference.

Parvis have been plagued with problems since the begining and I don't see it clearing up any time soon. I wonder if the original armeniacum was actually a vietnamense or if the taxonomist was colorblind, since armeniacum means "apricot colored" and I have yet to see one that wasn't yellow. And micranthum...anyone who would name this plant the latin version of "tiny flower" should not be a taxonomist. They say it was based on an unopen flower...but maybe there's another small flowered paph out there to be found. I say if you write the tag for the plant, put what you want to call it cause the taxonomists are never going to agree and there probably isn't a correct answer.
Jon

On speciation -- Littlefrog and others: I draw your attention to my posting under "Off Topic Discussion/Chit Chat" re: "Rapid orchid evolution".

On jackii, it is "distinct" (leaves, flower aspects), but plants, esp. orchids, don't usually make good "biological species" like mammals mostly do. Most mammals are not capable of interbreeding, although there are some exceptions (mules; some monkey hybrids). Jackii surely is capable of interbreeding with most any other Paph "species". Maybe hangianum is a natural hybrid, but that might echo processes among Paphs that have occurred repeatedly over thousands and millions of years.

BTW, to me, hangianum is also "distinct" as viewed from the numerous clones I have seen in pics (variations on the same gestalt). But what does "distinct" really mean?

Bottom line -- species concepts for organisms are far from standardized, and again, I say what matters most is phylogenetic (evolutionary tree) relationship, not particular names. Jackii and hangianum are evolutionary entities of some sort well worth growing AND conserving!

Of course, genus and species names are used for convenience in identifying things in the field, in the greenhouse, in the herbarium, and at Customs. However, names are not so terribly useful when it comes to conservation, since understanding genetic diversity within and among populations (and how these contribute to phylogeny) is what matters.

jackii from malipoense, I would consider on a variety. How many locations is jackii found in?

hangianum I consider an entirely seperate species from emersonii. I have seen emersonii f. album, and the three other varieties, and none of them resemble hangianum close enough in my opinion. Not to mention, have you ever seen an emersonii with nearly as good form as Avery Chan's hangianum 'perfection III'?

Steve, I would say "Excellence II" is the best ever hangianum I've had ... :D However, I may have an even better one this year ... it is about to fully open ...

For me, although I am a kindergarten kid from the eyes of taxonomy point of view, still think that hangianum is so different from emersonii . You can never mix them up if you put them side by side. Hope you guys can see them in person very soon in the future. For the time being, just look at their photos and you can still see significant differences from flower to the plant itself.

I have never seen a hangianum in person but from the pics I have seen they look very similar to emersonii. Also, jackii looks very similar to mailpoense except for the petals, jackii has pointed tip looking petals. Anyway, I don't know much about them but just sharing my opinion and observations. :lol:

Avery, I hope you do post a photo when your excellent and perfect plant is fully open! We'd love to see it I'm sure!

Jackii probably deserves varietal status as far as I am concerned. I've seen malipoense and jackii side by side at our local February orchid show and I don't see anything that would warrant calling jackii a species. Turn the staminoide black and jackii looks and smells like a poorly formed and smaller version of malipoense. Although even that distinction will eventually disappear, since jackii is still new and hasn't been linebred for improved flowers yet. Big difference in the staminoide, but nothing else.

As for hangianum, its definitely different from emersonii. Its even found in a different niche, despite the fact that it grows in the same geographic area. Hangianum is found on softer limestone than emersonii. Also, I've heard that hangianum smells like honey. But emersonii smells like chocolate or (to quote Norito) "old kitty litter".

Ok, I'll weigh in. I think jackii is a var. of malipoense. I think hangianum and emersonii are different species. (See? I told you Pete and I disagree sometimes...)

Chocolate vs. Kitty Litter? That's pretty different! :shock:

Ok, couple of photos for comparison:
P. hangianum
http://www.riboniorchidee.it/riboni/Paph.%20hangianum.gif

P. emersonii
http://www.paramountorchids.com/jpg/Paph%20emersonii.jpg

Heather, Thanks for linking the photos. I'm here learning and trying to educate my "eye." :shock:

I'm trying to see the differences between hangianum and emersonii that go beyond coloring. What I can see are differences in shape of the petals and the pouches and even differences in the relative placement ot the petals and pouches. The emersonii, to my eye, seems to have more dominant petals and a smaller and more centered pouch. [this observation does not take into account the colorings of either bloom.]

Which brings me to a question that perhaps I should not ask, as I am not a geneticist nor am I familiar with taxonomy.

What happens in the identification process that makes a species a species, instead of a variety? Are there certain measures that are used?

Sorry, I'm having a brain drain!:confused:

Best,
Susan

What happens in the identification process that makes a species a species, instead of a variety? Are there certain measures that are used?

The species is whatever the species type is when first described. A variant is typically noted for being different in one or few aspects, especially color, and is typically seperate in location to the species type.

Actually, to get technical, the following is needed to validly describe a species of orchid:

(1) a type specimen, specified as such, to be desposited in a registered herbarium
(2) a latin diagnosis, or better yet a latin dignosis and description
(3) publication and dissemination of of the publication to a certain number of institutions

Where the plant comes from is a nice thing to add, but isn't officially required. A plant can also be officially described from photos so long as a type specimen in a registered herbarium can be indicated.

One man's variety is another's species, if it has been validly described as such.

Let's take an example, Phragmipedium "wallisii", or whatever you want to call it.

The first relevant valid species to consider is Cypripedium Caudatum, which was published by Lindley and later transferred to Phragmipedium by R.A.Rolfe. You see, genera can be shifted, but a species name always stays the same unless the name overlaps with the same name in the genus one transfers the species to. Then funky things need to be done. But whatever, not in this case, so let's continue.

The next relevant name to be concerned with is Phragmipedium caudatum var. wallisii, which was described by Pfitzer in 1903. OK, so here we have a validly published varietal name. But then Garay erected Phragmipedium wallisii in 1978, and used the old varietal name as the species name. He didn't need to do this, since names don't have priority outside their rank. He could have named it Phrag beezelbubbianum if he wanted to.

You choose -- you can call the plant Phrag caudatum var. wallisii or Phrag wallisii, and you'd be correct in either case regarding the rules of nomenclature. Nomenclature and taxonomy are two different things -- nomenclature STICKS via rules; taxonomists make their own decisions re: which names to accept in THEIR systems (classifications).

Another example going the other way is Paph jackii, for which the moniker Paph. malipoense var. jackii has also been described. One could have used the name Paph. malipoense var. jackfowliei if one wanted (remember that names have no priority outside their rank).

But, we are stuck with all validly described names, and it is up to you, the grower, to decide which ones of these names you'd like to accept and put on your labels. The taxonomists will have their opinions too, and in their books they have to list all the synonyms for each name THEY accept.

If you want to check which Paph and Phrag names have been validly published, just go to the International Plant Names Index, www.ipni.org, and type the genus name in the field where it belongs, or even the genus and species names (even varietal names, etc.). You can find all the up-to-date info in there.

Have fun!

A note of warning re: my last mail!!

Not all names in www.ipni.org are validly published -- you need to check notes given for names which sometimes indicate the contrary.

Here is an example from IPNI for an invalid section name for Paph:

"Paphiopedilum sect. Hookerae J.H.Asher & Fowlie
in Orchid Dig., 45(1): 17 (1981), without latin descr. or type."

What I can found in order to post here is this link ... http://aqorchids.com/hangianum___Excellence_II__.jpg

However, I found photos of another nice clone - Excellence ! I am still thinking how to put it up here ... I don't have a scanner ...

For the discussion on malipoense and jackii , I would still consider jackii as a separate species. For other varieties of a species, the plants themselves look similar in appearance although there may also be differences in the outlook of their flowers. However, if you look at numerous examples of malipoense and jackii, you will find the differences in their plant outlook are so significant and no way you will think jackii should named under malipoense.

jackii was found in different locations and their appearance in both flower and plant are great. Those early discovered jackii has thicker and darker leaves and those recently discover has thinner and paler leaves. One may consider jackii closely related to malipoense only when they compare those early discovered ones with malipoense. Furthermore, their scents are different as well. jackii grow much faster than malipoense and can bloom almost every year while malipoense seldom bloom yearly since their new leads grow slow and need more time to get mature.