Icones, About all suggestions of changes I made to Kew were accepted, actually I don't memeber one that's has not. Many of them have a note there under "accepted by" and "not accepted by" but most were accepted straight away and don't even have these kind of notes. They were things greatly noticed in Brazil, many published, some not, but that were not updated there. Unpublished ones are under "personal comunication" notes. The thing is that I was not dealing with genera but with species, I mean, when two species are synonyms. I did not discuss if they were to be placed under this or that genus. I guess that's sort of an sterile discussion with them and it is not Govaerts himself who is going to decide. This approch is like a religion to them, they just belive and that's all. Won't change easily.
So despite what they place there, I prefer to have Acacaliis separated form Aganisia, I prefer to keep Sophronithis as it was before, and I accept most of Luer genera. I understand that we do not have Laelia in Brazil anymore (unless you accept that Schomburgkia are Laelia), but I don't like the large Sophronithis concept and keep them separated. Sophronithis purpurata aches in my ears! Regarding Icones Pleurothallidinarum 28, I have it since early June that makes 4 months and not 6 as I said, it just seemed to be more, sorry for the inaccuracy. Nevertheless there are many changes there, new ones that were not published before. There is a major change in Masdevallia, I think circa 10 new genera were created encompassing about half of Masdevallia species. Most of our Masdevallia are now under Alaticaulia and few under Acinopeta. No Masdevallia is left in Brazil. Brazilian species of Pleurothallis are not particularly contemplated in this volume but we can see that many species that in Kew have been placed under Anathallis and Acianthera are now under new genera which were not published in IP 26. While Luer has not dealt with Brazilian species, from the new genera descriptions we can conclude that from about 300 Brazilian Pleurothallis, only 6 or 7 will remain in this genus. The genus Panmorphia was created and that's great for separates quite diferent things that Kew places under Anathallis. The information of Icones Pleurothallidinarum 26 is in Kew database already. I completely agree that DNA is not an end but just a tool under development, by the way, I think there is a long way to go before we can reclassify genera having this as the most important tool, if ever will. What our eyes can see must have some degree of importance, it does not matter what Chemistry says. I also agree that Kew database is the best we have and that's why I took long time to review it. When you said that they give more weight to the work of Kew people you said exactly what I was thinking after sending the last e-mail. That's the reason why I'd rather use my time to correct two synonyms than complaining about decisions of genera divisions. I think they can hear the clamor about some of their genera divisions all around. Dalton At 15:18 18/10/2006, you wrote: >Dalton, > >What I said was "...if he believes you are correct he will make the changes >right away" and that is the truth. It goes without saying, that if he does >not agree or is not sure, it will take some time (if ever) to get the >changes made. The best example of this is the revision of Laelia by Kew and >all the subsequent attempts to overturn it. It is a mess, and I think Kew's >revision will not stand, but until enough people raise the issue with them, >it will not change. DNA is not an end all, be all, it is just another tool. > >Of the 200+ changes to the database you have submitted, how many of them >have been accepted and entered into the database? > >Luer's revisions were published in 'Icones Pleurothallidinarum' volume 26 in >2003, not in volume 28, which was just issued. However, I suspect you are >correct that these changes will not be incorporated into the database, there >being a little professional jealousy between the parties. However, I do >think they should be incorporated. > >I do agree that Kew has a tendency to give more weight to the work of Kew >people than other people and especially those that are not 'Professionals', >in Kew's estimation. Hopefully, this will change in the future. > >The Kew Database is not perfect by any estimation ( and I think Kew would >agree), however, it is the best tool we have to work with and if everyone is >working to improve it, we will ultimately get a database that reflects the >current consensus of the majority of orchid people (please note I did not >say taxonomist). > >icones > > > >_______________________________________________ >the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) >[email protected] >http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com > >Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. >Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 17/10/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4875 >Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
