Dalton [Holland Baptista] wrote : "The reason why no author is given to E. cochleata var. cochleata is because when one describes a variety of a given species, the "standard or tipic" variety is automaticaly created to represent all the others that do not belong to the new variety."
Well, it seems that it is not the case for another variety of Prosthechea cochleata : Prosthechea cochleata var. triandra (Ames) W.E. Higgins published in North American Native Orchid Journal 5: 18. 1999. ******************** the name Encyclia lancifolia (Pav. ex Lindl.) Dressler & G.E. Pollard was published in Phytologia 21(7): 437. 1971. from the basionym Epidendrum lancifolium Pav. ex Lindl. which had been published in The Genera and Species of Orchidaceous Plants 98. 1853. **************** In 1955, Lemée suggested that Epidendrum lancifolium was Encyclia cochleata (L.) Lemée That opinion was published in: Flore de la Gu[a]yane Française 1: 418-419. 1955. That combination is considered invalid because it does not refer to a valid publication of the basionym which has been a requirement from 1 Jan. 1953 (Art. 33.3). **************** In 1996, E. A. Christenson suggested that Encyclia lancifolia is a variety [cochleata] of Encyclia cochleata : please see : 'Mesoamerican orchis studies-VI: A name change for Encylia lancifolia' in Lindleyana, 11(4): 222. ***************** Regards, VB _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
