Guido, Yes Guido, Kew, being an organization, does not have the abilities or attributes of a person, however, many of the individuals that make up the organization are experts in the same sense that you are an expert, therefore I think everyone knew what I intended. Since you question the validity of the information from the Kew Monocot Checklist. Please tell us what your opinion is regarding Epidendrum porpax and provide the peer reviewed publication data.
As to the Kew Monocot Checklist it is not the Index Kewensis. I have explained this to you before but you seem to not remember. However, it is as authoritarian as any source (i.e. other web lists, published works etc...). It is a compellation of the information from published works and when differences exist between authors, the individuals that administer the list must make a conscious decision as to which one is more correct and enter the data that way. If you find an error (and yes there are errors in the data) please contact the web master and submit your data and after review, if they think you are correct, they will make changes. The best way to get the data changed is to publish your research and findings in a peer reviewed publication. In fact there are almost daily changes made in the list, as new things are published or discoveries are made. If you have a better list, then I recommend you publish it, if not then the Kew Monocot Checklist remains the best we have and we should be thankful it is on the web for all to use. icones <However, to your question. Epidendrum porpax is a synonym for Epidendrum peperomia. Therefore it is an Epidendrum and the correct species epitaph is <peperomia. The expert in this case is Kew. > > Nonsense, Kew is not the expert on taxonomic questions. Taxonomic > questions are governed by the International Code of Botanical > Nomenclature- And that has nothing to do with Kew. Kew compiles _one_ list > of plant species described (there are others e.g. MOBOT). That list was > funded originally by a donation of Darwin. It is called the "Index > Kewensis". It has hundreds if not thousands of errors in it caused by > mistyping and misinterpretation by the various editors. It is a great > place to start and I use it nearly daily, but it is NOT ... repeat NOT the > scientific authority. > > Whether Epidendrum porpax is a later synonym for Epidendrum peperomia can > only be defined by comparing the original publications, and this is not > done when entries are made in the Index Kewensis. > > I agree that it is a matter of opinion whether you put this plant within > Epidendrum, Encyclia, Nanodes etc. _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
