Peter,
I will send the scans of the J. J. Smith pages and the Backer pages directly
to you.
Yes , it is possible that they do not agree with J. J. Smith, Backer or
Comber's treatment of B. vittatum as a variety of B. cernuum, but in this
case it is far more likely they just overlooked it. I use these databases
myself almost every day and find them very useful, however, wherever
possible, I do the research myself, going back to the original documents
which I most often have in my library.
BTW I have for some time been interested in B. odontoglossum. Do you have
any personal knowledge of this species?
icones
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter O'Byrne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: [OGD] Bulbophyllum vittatum
My apologies to both icones and Viateur. It was indeed icones who
posted regarding Bulbophyllum cernuum, not Viateur.
Icones, you've correctly deduced that I don't have J.J.Smith's
original book on the Orchids of Java, just the books of icones and
Supplement 7. I'll take your word that Smith reduced B. vittatum T & B
to a syn of B. cernuum, and yes, I'd appreciate a copy of the
reference.
While I agree that neither IPNI nor the Kew Monocot list are 100%
correct (how could they ever be ?), there is another possible reason
why the reduction does not appear in either database ... the
botanists who advise on these lists may not agree with the botany, and
have "played safe" by listing B. vittatum as a distinct taxon.
Cheers,
Peter O'Byrne
in Singapore
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
