Hi "icones". I'll try keep it short, and I'll refer to the Australian Orchid Foundation translation of Schlechter's book, ie The Orchidaceae of German New Guinea, not Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea. You described this work as a "Flora", and criticised Schlechter for not confining himself to German New Guinea, as would be the convention in a flora. This label represents YOUR interpretation of the work, not Schlechter's. Schlechter never described his book as a flora. On page 1, paragraph 2, he refers to it as a treatise, and in the next paragraph he refers to it as a "the revision, which is now embodied in this book". Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to the place where he calls it a flora ?
Throughout the book Schlechter consistently refers to material from outside the immediate geographical area, thereby setting his concepts in a broader context. This is a very common approach in Botanic works, and I cited Gunnar Seidenfaden as an recent example of an author who readily crossed geographic borders when he thought it made sense. It is interesting that you chose not to make much of this ... but using Seidenfaden as an example would have undermined your point, wouldn't it ? As you know, Seidenfaden DID consider his work to be a contribution to a Flora; he makes this 100% clear in Orchid Genera in Thailand Vol 1, pages 1 and 2. So, Schlechter gets criticized for his extra-territoriality although he never described his work as a Flora, but Seidenfaden gets ignored for doing it when his work was intended to be one ?. I challenged your assertion that Schlechter had published a "complete revision" of the genus Dendrobium in his book. You went to some lengths to correct me, and still insist that he published a "complete revision" of the genus. Please see page 512, under the preamble to Eu-Dendrobium. Schlechter says "the division of this subgenus, as I give it here, must NOT be considered complete, since ....". Does that end the argument ? I described what Schlechter did as "a proposal for dividing the subtribe Dendrobiinae into genera and sections, with keys and short notes". You responded to this by directing my attention to Schlechter's line ten on page 509, quoting: "I have, therefore, once more attempted to modify the systematization of the genus..." I'm sorry, but you've lost me. My statement (the one that you object to) is a paraphrase of Schlechter's. I had the book open to that page when I wrote it. I substituted "Dendrobiinae" for "Dendrobium" because of the content on pages 495 to 497, which addresses the subdivision of Dendrobiinae. Nowhere in this book does Schlechter describe his treatment of either Dendrobium or Dendrobiinae as a "Complete Revision", for the very good reason that it isn't (see above). You objected to my statement that "Schlechter used [the book] .... 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 treatment accorded to Bulbophyllum ......" on the grounds that he didn't provide a complete revision for these groups. But I never said he did ! Schlechter never said he did, either. While he did not address the geographically-distant sections of Bulbophyllum, he DID address those that are distributed across S.E.Asia into New Guinea. I agree with you that this is not identical to his treatment of the Dendrobiinae, but I never said it was, did I ? See my statement above. By the way, I used the word "similar", not "same". So when it comes to Bulbophyllum, Schlechter proposed dividing the genus into 5 subgenera and a total of 42 sections, a subdivision that, even today, encompasses the majority of Bulbophyllum species in S.E.Asia.... which fits precisely with my statement above. Icones, I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. Forget about nit-picking based on the dictionary definitions of "Complete Revision" and "Flora". These are your terms; Schlechter didn't use them, and neither did I .... and for good reason. Cheers, Peter O'Byrne PS ... yes, Harvard was a joke. I figured that since you were possibly writing with your tongue firmly in your cheek, I could do the same. It appears I was wrong on that count. _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
