>---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:56:27 +0000 >From: K Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [OGD] New cattlerya names >To: <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >The full article can be found at Neodiversity >http://www.neodiversity.org/latestissue.html > >K Barrett >N Calif, USA> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:36:43 -0400> From: "Wesley Higgins" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: [OGD] New Cattleya Names> > For those who have >not seen van den Berg's "New Combinations in the> Genus Cattleya" paper, >Neodiversity 3:3-12 (2008), there are five new> names (nom. nov.) in >Cattleya:> > > > Cattleya bicalhoi based on Laelia dayana> > Cattleya dichroma >based on Sophronitis bicolor> > Cattleya hoehnei based on Laelia mixta> > >Cattleya luetzelburgii based on Laelia bahiensis> > Cattleya neokautskyi based >on Laelia kautskyi> > > > > Wesley E. Higgins, Ph.D. > Selbyana Editor > Head >of Systematics > Center for Tropical Plant Science & Conservation > Marie >Selby Botanical Gardens > 811 South Palm Avenue > Sarasota, FL 34236 > >Telephone 941-955-7553 ext. 315 > >_________________________________________________________________ > > I don't see any mention of L.perrinii, among others (L.tenebrosa, L.lobata, etc.). Anyone know if there will be a further addition to this enumerating those left out or if we should assume the species epithet remains the same though transferred to Cattleya (i.e., C.perrinii), or if in fact, he just forgot some?
Frankly though I am glad to see the large artificial 'sophronitis' lumping rejected, I am more comfortable with the earlier classification involving Brasilaelia, etc. - I don't really think the Hoffmannseggellas belong in cattleya for example. Tennis Maynard _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
