Dear Icones, Further than what you said, when there are conflicting publications regarding the correct status of one species... doubts wether they are synonyms or not... now they are placing these doubts there also, like "accepteb by" and "not accepted by"
Regarding Brazilian species, I thing they are in very good shape with occurences and synonyms, of course opinions may vary when we get down to what to call each genus and where to split them, but this is more like a matter of personal opinion. They sure do the best they can to inforce the use of things like a huge Sophronitis, Epidendrum and Trichocentrum... I see these genera from a diferent angle. Regarding Epidendrum peperomia, I remember of reading a publication years ago (Garay's?) explaining the diferences of some "varieties" and explaining why they should be seen as diferent species. What to call it? ... Well, Kew team is about to release a complete phylogeny of Epidendrum. It is my impression they will put a large number of genera under Epidendrum, like Neolehmania, Amblostoma, Coilostyles, Lanium and Nanodes, etc, actually Hagsater has been doing that for years. I am not sure I agree with the lumpers tho. Let's see their publication first...it is common to have some surprises. Dalton At 11:21 26/5/2006, you wrote: >Guido, > >Yes Guido, Kew, being an organization, does not have the abilities or >attributes of a person, however, many of the individuals that make up the >organization are experts in the same sense that you are an expert, therefore >I think everyone knew what I intended. Since you question the validity of >the information from the Kew Monocot Checklist. Please tell us what your >opinion is regarding Epidendrum porpax and provide the peer reviewed >publication data. > >As to the Kew Monocot Checklist it is not the Index Kewensis. I have >explained this to you before but you seem to not remember. However, it is as >authoritarian as any source (i.e. other web lists, published works etc...). >It is a compellation of the information from published works and when >differences exist between authors, the individuals that administer the list >must make a conscious decision as to which one is more correct and enter the >data that way. If you find an error (and yes there are errors in the data) >please contact the web master and submit your data and after review, if they >think you are correct, they will make changes. The best way to get the data >changed is to publish your research and findings in a peer reviewed >publication. In fact there are almost daily changes made in the list, as new >things are published or discoveries are made. If you have a better list, >then I recommend you publish it, if not then the Kew Monocot Checklist >remains the best we have and we should be thankful it is on the web for all >to use. > >icones > > > <However, to your question. Epidendrum porpax is a synonym for Epidendrum >peperomia. Therefore it is an Epidendrum and the correct species epitaph is ><peperomia. The expert in this case is Kew. > > > > Nonsense, Kew is not the expert on taxonomic questions. Taxonomic > > questions are governed by the International Code of Botanical > > Nomenclature- And that has nothing to do with Kew. Kew compiles _one_ list > > of plant species described (there are others e.g. MOBOT). That list was > > funded originally by a donation of Darwin. It is called the "Index > > Kewensis". It has hundreds if not thousands of errors in it caused by > > mistyping and misinterpretation by the various editors. It is a great > > place to start and I use it nearly daily, but it is NOT ... repeat NOT the > > scientific authority. > > > > Whether Epidendrum porpax is a later synonym for Epidendrum peperomia can > > only be defined by comparing the original publications, and this is not > > done when entries are made in the Index Kewensis. > > > > I agree that it is a matter of opinion whether you put this plant within > > Epidendrum, Encyclia, Nanodes etc. > > > >_______________________________________________ >the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) >orchids@orchidguide.com >http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com > >Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. >Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 25/05/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4770 >Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/ _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
