Many thanks Pankaj ... very useful information. Regards. Dinesh
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > While working on the Revision of Bulbophyllums of Asia, I am > encountering many Orchid names which are tricky. So I just wished to > share some information, why we should be careful while attaching > proper names to the plants. Its very technical and may not be interest > of all, but please bear with me. > Here are few strange examples: > > A. > Bulbophyllum careyanum (Hook.) Spreng., Syst. Veg. 3: 732 (1826). > Bulbophyllum carrianum J.J.Verm., Gard. Bull. Singapore 52: 279 (2000). > > Both of the above examples are of accepted names of two different > plants, but they are pronounced similarly though they have variation > in spelling and etymology. > > B. > Bulbophyllum klossii Ridl., Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 9: 179 (1916). > Bulbophyllum klossii Ridl., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1926: 85 (1926), nom. > illeg. > > Both of the names are unaccepted. Second name is invalid as the first > name already existed. These name dont refer to the same plant because > first plant is actually synonyms of Bulbophyllum trachyanthum > Kraenzl., Oesterr. Bot. Z. 44: 336 (1894), where as second one refers > to Bulbophyllum purpurascens Teijsm. & Binn., Natuurk. Tijdschr. > Ned.-Indië 24: 308 (1862). > > C. > Bulbophyllum ciliatum (Blume) Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.: 48 (1830). > Bulbophyllum ciliolatum Schltr., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. > 1: 809 (1913). > > Both the above names are accepted and they are distinct taxa and > missing one 'o' means a wrong identity!! > > D. > Bulbophyllum cochleatum Lindl., J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 6: 125 (1862). > Bulbophyllum cochleatum Schltr., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 8: 455 > (1910), nom. illeg. > > First is an accepted name and second is invalid as first exists but > second refers to another plant, Bulbophyllum macphersonii var. > spathulatum Dockrill & St.Cloud, N. Queensland Naturalist 26(117): 4 > (1957). > > E. > Bulbophyllum dearei (Rchb.f.) Rchb.f., Flora 71: 156 (1888). > Bulbophyllum dearei A.H.Kent in H.J.Veitch, Man. Orchid. Pl. 3: 95 > (1888), nom. illeg. > > Both names were published in 1888 but one was a bit early so first is > accept and second is illegitimate. But the interesting thing is, > second is synonym of first. Second interesting thing is the basionym > of first was also published in 1888, Sarcopodium dearei Rchb.f., Flora > 71: 156 (1888).!!! > > Enjoy the twists and turns.... > Pankaj > > > -- > ********************************************************************** > "Taxonomists getting Extinct and Species Data Deficient !!" > > > Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) > Conservation Officer > > Office: > Flora Conservation Department > Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) Corporation > Lam Kam Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. > > Residence: > 36c, Ng Tung Chai, Lam Tseun > Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. > > email: [email protected] > [email protected] > [email protected] > Phone: +852 2483 7128 (office - 8:30am to 5:30pm) > +852 9436 6251 (mobile) >
