Carson, My understanding is that Kovach brought it in as "Phrag. species" with the proper CITIES paperwork, (which the Peruvians later claim was bogus). Selby was charged with returning the herbarium sheets to Peru without the proper CITIES paperwork.
So I think the question you ask is mute, as it was known and identified as a Phrag. BTW I heard that Kovach has plea bargained a deal with the authorities and has gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Can anyone confirm this. icones ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:04 AM Subject: [OGD] A different twist on Phrag. kovachii > I am not an attorney, but something sort of bothers me and I would like a > little input on it. > > A lot has been said about Phrag. kovachii, the man who brought it in and > Selby Gardens. However, when we get right down to it, was it illegal, in regard > to CITES? What plant was brought into the country? A plant that was not > identified as a Phragmipedium nor was it identified as an orchid - it was not like > any known orchid. Mr. Kovach may have smuggled it in (I don't know the > particulars of how it got into this country), but what he brought in was an unknown, > unidentified plant species. Until Selby keyed it to being an orchid and to > being a Phragmipedium, and then gave it a name, it did not exist as an orchid or > as a Phragmipedium. Once keyed out and named, it then came under CITES. > But, it was not illegally brought into this country as a subject to CITES since > it literaly did not exist until Selby identified it. To then prosecute Mr. > Kovach for illegally bringing in a plant covered by CITES Appendix I was "ex post > facto." To say one "should have known" is not apprpriate. In court, a > layman is not accepted, generally, as an expert, so why should they "expect" Kovach > to know it was a Phragmipedium or even an orchid? Once Selby had keyed it > out and described it, then for them to return it to Peru was in violation of > CITES since, it is assumed, that the proepr Appendix I paperwork was not filed. > Their best bet was not to return it, but to have kept it. > > Comments? > > Carson E. Whitlow > Adel, IA 50003 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
