In OGD V8 #193, "icones" said: "In fact Schlechter was so disappointed in Kraenzlin's work on Dendrobium, that he published a complete revision of the genus in Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea, notwithstanding that all dendrobiums do not grow in what was then German New Guinea."
Sorry, but that is (a) wrong, and (b) a misrepresentation of the way botanists publish their findings. a) What Schlechter published in Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea was not even close to a "complete revision of the genus", but a proposal for dividing the subtribe Dendrobiinae (as understood at that time) into genera and sections, with keys and short notes. Some of the items in his proposal get only the briefest of mentions, for instance Macrocladium gets 9 lines, Eleutheroglossum gets 8 lines, Kinetochilus gets 4 lines, while Porpax (a whole genus) is limited to one word in the introduction, and one line in a key. A complete revision would involve a full critical examination of every species. b) Schlechter used Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea as an opportunity to publish his ideas for the taxonomic division of almost every group of orchids in S.E.Asia, so in the book you'll find a similar treament accorded to Bulbophyllum, Coelogyne, the Thelasinae and the Sarcanthinae, among others. It is perfectly normal for botanists to publish where and when they can, regardless of the name of the publication. Leslie Garay published his generic treatment on the Aeridiinae in Harvard Papers on Botany, notwithstanding that zero Aeridiinae occur naturally in Harvard. Gunnar Seidenfaden included descriptions and diagrams of orchids that are endemic to Myanmar and Malaysia in his "Orchid Genera in Thailand", and I'm very grateful that he did; it makes his work much more useful. Cheers, Peter O'Byrne _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
