Peter, I do not really know where you are coming from with these comments as they are just wrong. It is obvious that you have little actual knowledge of Schlechter's monumental work, The Orchidaceae of German New Guinea (all references are from the Australian Orchid Foundation's English translation).
Additionally your comments regarding how botanists publish their findings is way off base and shows a lack of understanding of the specific matter under discussion. Let me explain in both these cases why I say this (my comments follow yours): > Sorry, but that is (a) wrong, and (b) a misrepresentation of the way > botanists publish their findings. > > a) What Schlechter published in Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea > was not even close to a "complete revision of the genus", but a > proposal for dividing the subtribe Dendrobiinae (as understood at that > time) into genera and sections, with keys and short notes. Some of the > items in his proposal get only the briefest of mentions, for instance > Macrocladium gets 9 lines, Eleutheroglossum gets 8 lines, Kinetochilus > gets 4 lines, while Porpax (a whole genus) is limited to one word in > the introduction, and one line in a key. A complete revision would > involve a full critical examination of every species. Schlechter did provide a complete revision of the genus (I only addressed the genus, not the subtribe Dendrobiinae). If you read line ten on page 509 he said: "I have, therefore, once more attempted to modify the systematization of the genus...". He then goes on to divide the genus into four sub genera, Athecebium, Eu-Dendrobium, Rhopalobium and Xerobium. He then further divides the genus into 41 sections (some of which have no representatives from German New Guinea). Some of the sections are only briefly addressed, but sufficiently so that his treatment has only recently begun to be revised. What you are describing is a monograph of the genus, which he did not do. > b) Schlechter used Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea as an > opportunity 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 treament accorded to Bulbophyllum, Coelogyne, the Thelasinae > and the Sarcanthinae, among others. This is inaccurate! He did not treat any of these as he did Dendrobium. On line 15, page 757, under Bulbophyllum, Schlechter states; "I now propose to attempt a division of the genus into sub-genera and sections, so far as they are found in our Territory are concerned, but I do not propose to consider those species belonging to the African sections (such as Megaclinium), nor to the American ones (such as Bulbophyllaria) nor those found exclusively in Indo-Malayan regions....". Obviously not treating Bulbophyllum as he did Dendrobium. On line 8, page 171, under Coelogyne Schlechter says; " The species occurring in the Territory are distributed, according to Pfitzer-Kranzlin division, into four sections of the genus...". These are the only sections he deals with. He did not address the other sections at all. Again not treating Coelogyne as he did Dendrobium. Under Group XXII Thelasinae Schlechter discusses other species from Papua that are not found in German New Guinea, however he does not address any genus, section or species that does not grow in the region. So again he did not treat Thelasinae as he did Dendrobium. Finally, on line 7, under Sarcanthinae Schlechter says, "Genera which do not occur in our territory are discussed here only when this is unavoidable". Certainly not a treatment like Dendrobium. > It is perfectly normal for botanists to publish where and when they can, > regardless of the name > of the publication. That is true for general publications but it is not true for floras, which The Orchidacae of German New Guinea is. By definition a flora is: "A systematic treatise on the plants of a given area.". So by the title of the work and by definition of a flora, this would and does exclude plants, and in this case Orchids, that are not found in the specified area. That does not mean that things from outside the area cannot be discussed for clarity, but only when relating to taxa found within the area. Gunnar Seidenfaden (as you say below) sometimes included species from adjacent areas, usually for clarification or because he believed they would be found within the subject area at a later date, as he usually stated in the text. > Leslie Garay published his generic treatment on > the Aeridiinae in Harvard Papers on Botany, notwithstanding that zero > Aeridiinae occur naturally in Harvard. This has got to be a joke! Harvard is an institution not a geographic location and is a general publication. We are dealing in fact with a Flora, and to include a complete revision of a genus that is not encompassed by that area is unusual! In fact Schlechter himself commented on it. See Page 509 line 12, where Schlechter says; " Since we are concerned with a special treatise on the orchids of [German] New Guinea, these have received special attention, although in order to co-ordinate the whole I have mentioned the chief groups of the other floral areas". The previous 26 lines before the quote, deal with his dissatisfaction with Kranzlin's monograph of the genus and explains why he felt compelled to completely revise the genus. > Gunnar Seidenfaden included > descriptions and diagrams of orchids that are endemic to Myanmar and > Malaysia in his "Orchid Genera in Thailand", and I'm very grateful > that he did; it makes his work much more useful. See above. icones _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
