Sorry if this gets sent twice. Email glitch. Icones wrote: > It was first published in French in 2002 in 'Richardiana' 2(1):604- > 619 and in English in 2003 in the 'Proceedings of the European > Orchid Conference and Show' :95-107. The authors also have the > info on their web site.
The other analysis was done by Chiron and Castro Neto. I think this is the website that Icones referred to. If not, perhaps he could give us the correct URL: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/orchidnews/on17/paginas/vitor01eng.htm The English is a little eccentric in places, but perhaps it is a translation. In any event, you can probably get the gist of the argument. Basically, Sophronitis becomes a monotypic genus containing only S. cernua. Most of the rupiculous Laelias become Hoffmannseggella. The other Sophronitis species get lumped with Laelia pumila, Laelia purpurata, and related species. From the point of view of lumping morphologically and ecologically disparate species, genus Hadrolaelia doesn't seem to be much of an improvement on the Sophronitis of van den Berg et al. Cassio van den Berg responds to their analysis and defends his lumping of the species into Sophronitis here: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/orchidnews/on20/pages/cassio01en.htm Nick -- Nicholas Plummer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
