At 02:01 PM 7/13/2004 +0200, you wrote: >>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:34:37 -0400 >>From: Prem Subrahmanyam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [OGD] Fwd: Habenaria rhodocheila vs. ericmichaelii >> >>So, will none of the taxonomists on this forum reply to my e-mail? >> >> >> >>>Well, >>> my pink form rhodocheila (what Eric Christenson now calls >>>H. ericmichaelii) is opening. I can see some definite differences >>>between the flower forms, the general carriage of the plant, the >>>foliage, etc. My question is this: if the pink form of H. rhodocheila >>>was the basis for the description of the species and the orange form >>>discovered later (or perhaps lumped later into H. rhodocheila), is it >>>proper to separate out the type form into a new species and leave the >>>orange form in the original species, especially considering the fact >>>that the rose-lipped form is more appropriate to the specific epithet? >>> >>>I would think just the obverse to be more appropriate...put the orange >>>form into its own species and leave the rose-lipped form in the species >>>in which it was originally described. >>> >>> > >Dear Prem, > >maybe some of us taxonomists have not always the time to deal with this >list. > >_If_ the pink form of H. rhodocheila was the basis of the description it >is - by definition - the type form. If the "orange form" does not differ >from the pink form by anything but the flower color, we have one single >species with two flower color variations. Flower color difference is >not enough to create a separate species. To your second question: if >one were to separate the species, the PINK form would have to remain H. >rhodocheila as it is the type form of the species . What is more >appropriate (for whoever) or what was discovered first is of no >importance. What counts is the original description of H. rhodocheila >... and if that states that the flower is pink ... then, as I already >said above, that is the real H. rhodocheila.
Well, considering that "rhodocheila" means "pink-lipped" or "rose-lipped" when translated, one would assume that this is the type color form for the species, if given no other information. Several literature sources that I've read describe a "rare, orange-colored variant", so it seems, again, safe to assume that the pink form is the basis for the species. Now that I have both forms blooming simultaneously, there are significant differences that I can see: 1. the column has two small appendages beneath the structures in the anther that presents the tips of the pollinia to the pollinator. In the orange form, these two appendages are straight and in a parallel plane with the anther cap structures. In the pink form, these recurve strongly outward. 2. the pink form flower is, overall, about 1.5 times the size of the orange form. 3. the orange form spur is about 1.5 inches long and arcs toward the lip such that the tip of the spur is very near to the base of the lip. The pink form spur is about 2.5 inches long and arcs back away from the flower, placing the tip of the spur near the axis of the flowering stem. The orange-form spur is near-perfectly round in cross section, while the pink form is strongly ovoid, to the point that it almost appears flat and ribbon-like. 4. the foliage of the orange form is largely unmarked and evenly green... there may be slight tessellations of deeper green, but they are very non-obvious. The foliage of the pink form is bronze in color with silver "windows" tessellated along the center of the leaf. 5. I detected a slight fragrance this evening on the pink form...I will try again in the morning to see if the fragrance is stronger. The orange form, as far as I know, is entirely non-fragrant. In any case, this is what I've observed so far. ---Prem www.premdesign.com
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
