"peter croezen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spaketh thusly: > >>but Mexipedium xerophyticum is on CITES Appendix I > > Aaron you are right, it is as you say a "cute little booger," however, the genus > Mexipedium > is not listed on CITES Appendix 1. > > Here is the link to CITES' own webpage listing all CITES App I II III species: > http://www.cites.org/eng/append/appendices.shtml > > Of the Lady's slippers, only Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium are on CITES App.I > > Cypripedium and Mexipedium are not. > > Is there a new CITES document out that confirms what you said??
Ah, taxonomy. The field in which I profess vast and unfettered ignorance- one among many- trips me up again. Mexipedium is, for purposes of CITES, considered part of Phragmipedium. To quote Douglas Adams, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." While CITES is not intended to be a bastion of taxonomic wisdom, the Powers that Be (tm) have decided that Mexipedium xerophyticum is a member of Phragmipedium. Viz: http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/admin_pdf/aditcitesspecies.pdf (page 31) Family Orchidaceae Phragmipedium spp. (=Mexipedium spp.) That's from USC Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, part 23, Endangered Species Convention. In terms of how other countries interpret this- I can't speak to that. In fact, I can't speak to US law either because (thankfully) I am not a lawyer and, in fact, am not a very good geologist, either. For those not already familiar: phrags are "New World" species, paphs are largely (exclusively?) Asian. Mexipedium is known from one site (unless more have been found and I've not heard of it) in Mexico. The precise location of the site has yet to be disclosed; a few (five?) plants were taken under permit for propagation to the United States, and descendants are commercially available. Marilyn LeDoux deserves much of the credit in the popularization of the species. Note from Bob Wellenstein's excellent pages on the subject: http://www.ladyslipper.com/mexipedium.htm "The plant was described by Soto et al in 1990, and transferred to it's own genus by Albert and Chase in 1992, based at least in part on it's unilocular ovary more reminiscent of Paphiopedilum and Cypripedium than Phragmipedium's trilocular ovaries. This transfer is not universally accepted (see Koopowitz (1995))." I can see this in court. "But- your honor, really, now. The ovaries are unilocular, not trilocular! Of COURSE this isn't an Appendix I species!" The appeals process is left as an exercise for the reader. Seen not too very long ago: Orchid nurseries outside the United States selling what are clearly paphiopedilums sold as Cypripedium species. Paphs, of course, are on Appendix I, whereas cypripediums have managed to elude the stigma to date. There are occasional efforts to list some or all cypripediums on Appendix I at Conference of the Parties. Cypripedium bellatulum, indeed. Maybe a hundred years ago, but certainly not now. Cheers, -AJHicks Chandler, AZ _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
