Peter, My comments follow yours.
> 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 ? I never said 'he' called it a flora, I made that clear, however by definition that is what it is. I also did not criticized Schlechter. My point was and still is, that he felt so strongly that Kranzlin's work was unworkable that he took the unusual step to include the revision in his work on German New Guinea > 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 ?. Again, I never criticized Schlechter so your point is off base again. If you will go back and read what I said, you will see this is a fact. These two paragraphs are just obfuscation. Gunner Seidenfaden was one of the best! > 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 ? No, because lets read all of what he says: "The division of this sub-genus, as given here, must not be considered complete, since the sections Eugenanthe and Pedilonum will probably have to be divided still further, and I have been unwilling to proceed hastily without a precise consideration of all the material". All he is saying is that I may have to make changes in the future after I do more study, but this is how I see it right now. Most any Botanist or Taxonomist would likely be willing to include this statement in there works, as they are usually ongoing. > 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). I guess what we are really disagreeing on, is the meaning of 'systematization' (which he does use). My dictionary says its; "The act or practice of systematizing". And systematizing means; "To make into a system: arrange methodically". I find this consistent with complete revision. As another point, please tell me what group of the then known dendrobiums that Schlechter did not address, albeit briefly in some cases. > 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". I think you are fish tailing here, as you did imply this and they are not even similar, but I am glad you admit you were wrong. > 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. Again, he did not treat it the same as he did Dendrobium. You conveniently do not discuss the other groups that you mentioned, because they do not even come close to a 'similar' treatment (as you now claim you meant). Also if you go back and read my quote (or the book), you will see that he did not include the bulbophyllums that grow exclusively in the Indo-Malayan regions, as this is part of S.E. Asia, you are wrong again. He only included those that were found in German New Guinea and adjacent German islands. > 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. First off, you were the one that attacked what I said in very uncomplimentary terms. Now when you have been shown to be a person that uses inaccuracies to try to prove your points (which are wrong), you want to call off the dogs. Secondly, I did read very carefully, what you wrote that was why I could pick it apart so easily. I think I have conclusively proven my point about 'complete revision". A flora is what it is; you cannot deny that, and just because Schlechter did not use the term, does not mean it is not a flora. > 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. I do not buy it. icones _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
