Yes, I do realize that the plants must be collected and preserved as
official points to technically be types. However, in some of the collected
and described specimens from the original publication, there is an
unstable genetic abberation of symmetrical incisions upon the dorsal. So
even in the original collection of the plants to be described you had wide
variation, even though it was not THE selected single plant that had
the variation. So I am only right in a sense, but not technically.
Not only is the leaf mottle and size different, but you
will notice the flower morphology is very different. According to Braem,
no isotype of the originally described holotype has been found. Although
he did not say this as a direct quote, he and Chiron said "Several clones
of P. sangii have been introduced to cultivation. Plants matching the
original description have not been re-introduced," (Paphiopedilum 2003.)
I believe that the holotype was originally described in Die Orchidee, 38(4)
on page 169. So when I say that the holotype is variant, I mean in so
much as the plants are different in growth and flower, including the
unstable genetic abnormality that was noted in the original holotype
specimen collections, to the point where no flowers matching the original
description have been found.
ST
Peter> PS .. "holotype" has a very specific meaning to botanists. Maybe you
Peter> meant to use a different word ?
Peter> _______________________________________________
Peter> the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
Peter> [email protected]
Peter> http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
