Not very long ago, it was a time when a
consensus of educated opinions formed solid bases of knowledge about things in
which people could depend. Certain
facts were universally accepted and were seldom questioned as to their
veracity. When additional
information was gained which impacted those facts, the same trust and respect
could be given to newer or modified assessments of them. People could trust what they read or
were taught in school because the people who gave us that information were
reliable and regarded as experts.
Things
are different now. So much new
information is being continuously presented that it is hard to keep up with
current knowledge. People who
deliver these new ‘facts’ do not discriminate, for various reasons,
between fact and fiction, and because most of these ideas are delivered through
the media they are received as being truth. Different interpretations of new information, in all fields
of study is expressed, which often conflicts with established views. ‘Established views’ are
being forgotten, perhaps even unknown, and people are now faced with
uncertainty caused by the need to decide which ideas are valid. In some subjects the contrasts between
views are so wide that no significant confidence can be developed to support any
particular position, and trying to find where there is a hidden political
agenda takes either cynicism or a particular degree of knowledge.
Of
course new ideas are always welcomed, but the trust once afforded to many of
our bases of knowledge have been eroded and is being replaced with the idea in many
cases, that one person’s reality of the truth has now become almost as
credible as truth itself. To
logical thinkers such as myself, the methods of modern liberalized education
which teaches this ‘reality’ are most disturbing. Having to wonder what constitutes
genuine truth weakens intelligent and meaningful discourse, but worse, it
undermines an effective position from which further study can be
established.
The
result of this current trend makes it difficult to place our trust in any
reliable source and many people now may not even know the concept of real
truth. But, regardless of these
uncertainties, one can find the truth, only now it oftentimes requires a
resolute effort to know rather than casual acceptance of consensual
determinations of it. Because a
particular truth is less easily known, it requires one to become enlightened to
the point where the reality of actual truth, or at least the truth as it is
known to that particular point in time, needs to be determined for
oneself. This requires individual
effort.
Many years ago, the groundwork for a
base of knowledge had been started in orchids, and numerous authors have
contributed to that foundation, especially during the past fifty or so years. Unfortunately, much of it has been
found to be confused, particularly in the area of culture, and it has been
rebuilt as we gained additional knowledge about these orchids. Fortunately, the basic needs of orchids
have remained constant and the principles of orchid culture can be utilized,
with adaptations to their methods of application, based largely upon
one’s locality.
Taxonomically
however, there is less understanding, and modifications and changes in names or
classifications are disturbingly, more frequently seen. While the basic principles and tools of
botanical classification have remained constant, some of their methods of
application have recently undergone changes.
In
the study of orchids, I myself carry a certain responsibility for undermining
some part of that foundation of knowledge, but with the ultimate and sole
purpose of offering more clarity.
I have also offered what I believe to be a solid basis for the
foundation of truth, particularly in the respect to culture of Paphiopedilum orchids.
In
the study of paphiopedilums in particular, there were only bits and pieces of
information in literature, from anecdotal references and from herbarium
specimens, all of which were widely scattered about the globe. They were in fact, a shunned genus and
little attention had been paid them since the latter part of the 19th
Century. As they suddenly gained
important notice in the late 1960’s, we tried to find that foundation of
truth, unfortunately we learned there was almost none. We were forced then, to build it
ourselves.
Surprising
to most people, there are no hard and fast rules which define the criteria used
for the identification of orchid species.
Nothing is set in concrete which says just what precisely separates one
species from another. It is all a
matter of opinion. What makes any
species valid is when it described in Latin and it is published. The description can be brief or
lengthy; it just needs to be published and to have a type specimen preserved. The first to be published is the valid
description, while all others are invalid.
Anyone
can name a new species just by describing it and by publishing that description
in practically any plant oriented publication, and any species’ validity
can be challenged by anyone who cares to do so. It is always assumed that botanists would work in harmony
within existing norms to provide a consensus of opinion which can further
clarify our understanding of plants.
Essentially,
botany is just like accounting; it is a ‘safe’ science. Early botanists established basic rules
for their study, to which they continue to painstakingly adhere, to the present
time. Each species of plant is
examined and then entered into a classification, or pigeonhole in which we have
established for it to reside. It
makes us humans happy when we have places to put all of our belongings. But nature has its own rules and
frequently, they do not fit our needs.
This is clearly demonstrated by the many discussions (arguments) between
some botanists, who at times have different interpretations of how to classify
plant species.
Many
botanists strongly resist changing their methods and instead, they continue to
try to force plants into submitting to their established classifications. But it does not always work. The Artificial Keys which have been
constructed for the different orchid genera always reveal anomalies that never
quite seem to fit, and so different pigeonholes are often constructed in a
further attempt to put a species into the proper slot.
Therefore,
to avoid the paradox of an Artificial ‘Key’, in this Second Edition, I
have decided against including yet another, different key. (However, in the physical layout of
this book I have mostly followed Cribb’s Key in the order in which each
species is presented.)
Botanists
have acknowledged that botany is a ‘living science’ since it keeps
changing, as do the plants they study, (although not quite at the same rate or
speed of change). Those areas of
change are where botanists find many of their disagreements, since most of them
are in the area of interpretation rather than in the timeworn methods of their
collection and preservation. Aside
from the presence of newer information, and the increase in numbers of
botanists, the fact that interpretations keep changing bears incontrovertible
witness to the absence of adequate criteria for a comprehensive study. This is particularly so in the study of
orchids.
It has been evident for some time that
new rules for the study of plants should be established which could help to
alleviate some of the problems we have with our orchid classifications. While changes are not generally as
easily accepted in the field of botany as they are in some other disciplines,
it is an insufficient reason for botanists not to accept newer and more useful
ideas and tools, or to at least have an open mind to the examination of the
ways by which improved techniques can be utilized. In the minds of orchid horticulturists, many of these ideas
are simply logical and have been utilized by them for years.
The
idea of separating plants into specific categories, consistent with a number of
constant and distinguishable similarities, is a long-established practice and
has been a universally declared goal in botany. This process of separation is the result of the
botanist’s increased clarity of the elements found to distinguish between
the species. (Frequently, those
categories have also contained numbers of plants lumped together in the past
according to a relatively few of their similar characteristics.) Both logic and stated declarations
dictate, that if a group of similar-appearing species can be further separated
into smaller groups, each with readily distinguishable, separate and consistent
characteristics constant to their own kind, then it must be done. This defines the “Test of
Logic”.
Lumping
together groups of species whose flowers have numerous different
characteristics, yet which retain a small semblance of similarities that place
them into a broad set of parameters for identification, serves no purpose. It only causes confusion when like-named,
similarly appearing but not identical plants from a group are compared. Two people could be discussing the same
species, yet have two distinctly different flowers. Think of how it can confuse orchidists, and how it opens the
question of parentage of previously made orchid hybrids.
Since
no author has yet presented a convincing argument to support a reason why the
consolidation of two ‘somewhat similarly appearing species’ could
clarify our understanding of them, I cannot support the concept. In addition, since some geographical
groups of natural species exhibit particular adaptive genetic characteristics,
which the persistent degrees of separation of their physical habitats continue
to reinforce, the separation of them into clearly distinct species in their own
right will ultimately occur. The
question then is: “When it will be accepted by a majority of the
interested parties?”
In
my mind, there can be only one goal, and that is to provide as clear an
understanding of a species’ identity as is possible so there is
minimal confusion between groups of recognizably different types of plants. This requires not only profound and
insightful knowledge, but also the courage to define those specific differences
and to declare them.
Ultimately,
the answers to the questions of the accepted names for species will be decided
by consensual agreement, dictated by common usage amongst orchidists
themselves. And while botanists
consider themselves the most reasonable and deserving authority responsible for
establishing those identities, (in reality, they are the authority), the collective intellect of
horticulturists will be the ‘tail that wags the dog.’ This is easily understandable in view
of, amongst other things, the likes of the “sanderianum” vs. “sanderanum” debacle (see
Chapter 16) perpetrated by British botanists.
When
it was introduced in 1984, the First Edition of this book was greeted with
great enthusiasm, but in the sense that some of the ideas I presented
contradicted well-established cultural methods, it was eyed with some
trepidation. It was not until my
ideas of frequent irrigation, stronger light intensities and large volumes of
moving air were tried, that they became more accepted.
This
book was the first publication written in English to illustrate all the known Paphiopedilum species in a single
source. For the most part, my
interpretations of the species were widely accepted by horticulturists, but as
I noted therein, changes would undoubtedly need to be made in the future. That time has come.
The
search has been made simpler now, to find information needed to make
satisfactory identifications for the currently grown species. There are several publications
specifically dedicated to the genus, each having a slightly different view of
the ‘correct’ names for numerous paphiopedilums, including names
for the wealth of recently discovered species.
Dr.
Phillip Cribb’s position as Director of the Orchid Herbarium at the Royal
Botanic Gardens in Kew, England, has ranked him as a leading authority on the
genus of Paphiopedilum species. The
Second Edition of his book, The Genus Paphiopedilum, is an outstanding
work and one of the most comprehensive and beautiful books I have read, on any
subject. The detailed information
he provides should form the solid foundation from which the study of Paphiopedilum orchids can be based,
and I stand in admiration of his fine accomplishment. I highly recommend that anyone interested in learning about
the taxonomy and history of paphiopedilums should have this book. The illustrations alone, particularly
the habitat photographs, are worth the price.
I
have borrowed from his book, habitat range, historical data and have agreed
with many of his classifications from his extensive compilation, to modify or
to supplement my own work. Some of
Dr. Cribb’s classifications have been met with disagreement however,
since it is his preference to consolidate the similarities in the species,
rather than to separate them by their differences.
The
late Dr. Jack Fowlie’s personal observations of the habitat conditions of
numerous Paphiopedilum species have contributed greatly to our understanding of
the environmental conditions under which Paphiopedilum orchids exist. His voluminous contributions have been
extremely enlightening and his energetic pursuits to further our knowledge
bases are unequaled. As past
editor of The Orchid Digest magazine, he continuously published stunning
habitat photographs and personal observations of those conditions, as well as
the most current information about Paphiopedilum species. I have also borrowed from his extensive
works. Some of Dr. Fowlie’s
offerings of his own speculation as to the characterization of certain
botanical concepts have also been controversial.
Dr.
Harold Koopowitz, professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, at the
University of California, and Director of UCI Arboretum, has taken an approach
to the subject of paphiopedilums which seems to meld the known information
about them into a sensible arrangement for distinguishing each species from the
other. His studied considerations
of their specific traits frequently result in logical and convincing arguments,
and his dedication to the genus is readily apparent in his writings. I find his work most enlightening,
especially since he is in agreement with most of my own thoughts, yet as might
be expected, some do not agree with his determinations.
There
have been others who have contributed significantly to the taxonomic study of Paphiopedilum orchids, among them
are: Drs. K. Karasawa and K. Saito, the late Dr. James H. Asher, Dr. John H.
Beaman, Charles O., and the late Margaret L. Baker, Dr. Guido J. Braem. Prof.
Leonid V. Averyanov, PhD., DSc., Dr. William Cavestro, and others, who have
each added their own particular interpretations to this base of knowledge of Paphiopedilum orchids.
So
what now is the foundation of true knowledge, and how can we know what to
believe, or whom to believe for accurate identities of the different Paphiopedilum species?
I
believe that many of the answers will be found in this book, as I have formed
my conclusions based upon certain criteria that seem more important in the
overall perspective. While I agree
that it is important to adhere to established rules of botany, there are at
times, particular conditions which can modify them according to both common
sense and popular usage. Since
there are no universally accepted hard and fast rules for the tools used for
identification, it is my obligation to use the most logical tools, and to present
what I believe to be reasonable methods of classification, just as many other
authors have also done.
Personally,
I am a curious and creative thinker, unencumbered by the usual constraints of a
formal college education. I was
driven to find the answers to many of my questions on my own, when college
could not provide them, and I am intelligent enough to construct logical
opinions based upon the information I have gathered from countless and diverse
sources. Since I do not have the
same attachment to a specifically structured education and its attendant rules,
I maintain the right, the freedom and the responsibility to distinguish amongst
a broader base of information by viewing a more feasible picture in the
taxonomic world.
I
have spent many years studying, and taking into careful consideration, the
different elements which formed this picture, and while some might be viewed as
controversial, particularly to schooled botanists and their disciples, I am
confident that a large percentage of horticulturally inclined orchid growers
already agree with my logically derived assessments.
While
this might appear on the surface to be a somewhat arrogant position, in the
course of my education I have found a surprising number of important resources
with incorrect information, much of which appears in textbooks written by the
college educators themselves. I
was particularly surprised to find that even some of the most prolific authors
who are regarded as leaders in the field of botany, and whose books are used as
standard college teaching and reading materials, have allowed major errors to
appear in their works.
I
know this, because in many cases I have duplicated their research and have
realized different conclusions, and I learned how and why their errors were
made. I also know it because many
college professors have students do much of their research, and often they do
not verify those voluminous findings themselves when reaching their
conclusions. I have observed the
carelessness of many of those students and I know how the time constraints of
their professors, who must ‘publish or perish’, can impact the
outcome of their published results.
I should also add that factual mistakes are not limited just to the
field of botany, as I have encountered them in other fields of study as well.
I
do not intend this to be a broad condemnation of educators or of textbooks,
because I also know of many that are factual and true. But it does point out one of the
realities of life, and that is for the need to verify in some way, all that we
learn. Even my own conclusions may
at some time come under suspicion, since different decisions will undoubtedly
be made from newer and as yet undisclosed information, and also from the fact
that in some cases I might simply be wrong.
Some
of the names I attached to certain plants in the First Edition proved
inaccurate, but at the time it went to press they were based on the best
information available. I have made
changes to a few of them in this Second Edition, to reflect what I think are
their more rightful identities. I
have made changes, or have maintained my previous identifications, based on the
idea that the separation of reliable and consistent differences between
similar-looking species should have precedence over their consolidation, simply
because it more clearly defines our references to them.
Species
pairs such as P. curtisii and P. superbiens, and P.
hirsutissimum
and P. esquirolei
are examples of presently consolidated species, which I maintain should be
regarded as four separate species, since they each are readily recognizable by
their own distinct characteristics and cultural requirements. It is an idea afforded more weight
given both historic and geographic considerations, and especially since their
individual names have been recognized for many years.
P.
curtisii
was first described in 1882, P. superbiens in 1855, while P. hirsutissimum was described in 1857
and P. esquirolei
in 1912. Thousands and thousands
of horticulturists, and many botanists have known them as separate species ever
since, and they have been used in hybridization numerous times. It makes little sense to me why the
consolidation of clearly recognizable species can benefit anyone. The fact that horticulturists seem to
have the ability to recognize those particular similarities and differences
questions the need for botanists to declare the facts so contrarily, especially
when horticulturists seem more able to recognize and declare the differences
between plants than do some botanists.
In
addition to morphology, geography plays a momentous part in defining the
identities of orchid species, and the differences in the four above-mentioned
species are due to their geographic separations. Over time, these habitat separations
will continue to more define their differences, principally because of
deforestation, and at some point in the future that fact will undeniably
establish a unanimous acceptance for their specific separation.
This
is easily understood by considering the outcome of species isolation, which
prevents the introduction of genetic material from interchanging with other
geographically separated varieties (or populations) of species, and it
therefore ensures the recombination of their own genes. While this isolation more clearly
strengthens each species’ dominant and identifying characteristics, it
ultimately can lead to deformities, albinism and lethality, (which is why we
don’t marry our own sister).
Paphiopedilum
bullenianum
for example, as Dr. Cribb defines the species, is found growing over an
extremely wide geographical range, from the large island of Sumatra in the
west, across peninsular Malaysia, Borneo, Celebes, and to the island of Ceram
in the east. While many have
argued the need to separate the several recognizably different varieties into
distinct species, he does not accept the idea.
Yet
every single plant and flower of P. celebesense I have seen in habitat
is remarkably similar. The species
shows little noticeable variations, and it is clearly discernable from the P.
bullenianum
population from Kalimantan, especially in its leaf tessellations and plant
habit. The same can be said about
the plants I call P. ceramense, which are still further isolated. The same degrees of differences can be
seen in each of the other geographic varieties Cribb describes as ‘P.
bullenianum’
and they are easily and reliably separable.
And
despite the fact that I have probably seen more individual plants of P.
celebesense
than any other human, it would simply be ludicrous for me to presume I had
viewed its entire habitat. In
fact, the possibility exists that differences or similarities in plants found
in other habitats of the taxa might readily confirm its specific identity, in
contrast to P. bullenianum.
Similar
differences are also demonstrated in the species we have known as P. lowii. Some plants exhibiting specific and
constant differences from P. lowii have now been more logically separated into
three easily recognizable and defined species: P. lowii, P. lynniae, and P. richardianum. These separations rightfully serve to
more clearly define the plants we know both botanically and
horticulturally. Especially in the
minds of orchid horticulturists, these differences are already known and are
broadly accepted for these species, as are other similarly consolidated
species. I have also seen
specimens of others from this group which will undoubtedly deserve their own
specific name as we see and learn more about them.
There
are always problems which we seem unable to resolve. For instance, P. leucochilum from Thailand occurs in
the Gulf of Krabi. Normal flowers
are white, yet about one in four have a creamy-yellow color, and they sometimes
have a different type and pattern of spotting. These differences can be seen in individual plants growing
next to each other and are apparently produced from the same seedpods. (Rarely, this same coloration can be
seen in the Gulf of Siam in populations of P. godefroyae.)
P.
exul, a
yellow flowering species, grows in the same western area of Thailand, and the
variable white flowered P. niveum can also be found a bit farther north on the
same, western sides of both Malaysia and Thailand. Both of those species have either dots or small spots on the
flowers. Also, Paphiopedilum
concolor,
another yellowish-flowered species, is believed to have occurred in habitats
not too far distant from these areas, but it is not known to overlap the
habitat of P. niveum.
It
has been argued that the cream-colored flower type is the result of a natural
hybrid of P. niveum with either P. concolor, or maybe with P.
exul. However, since the white color in
paphiopedilums is a dominant gene, the idea of P. leucochilum being the result of an
introgressively inbred hybrid, (a commonly held opinion) which may contain
parentage from a distant yellow-flowered species, cannot be discounted. But the percentage of the
creamy-colored types are in far greater number than would be expected from a
chance combination of regressive genes, and presently, their existence cannot
be explained with a high degree of certainty relative to hybrid parentage
On
the other hand, there is the possibility that some orchids, P. leucochilum perhaps, (and maybe P.
godefroyae)
may exist in a different color form than that of typical specimens. This phenomenon may be seen in parrots
such as Stella’s Lory, (Charmosyna papou stellae) which has a normal,
brightly colored form, and a melanistic (black) form. The color differences are quite striking, however they are
recognized as the same species, and the two color forms freely inter-breed
without mixing their coloring.
It
has occurred to me, the first and natural inclination to regard these emerging transitional
species
as resulting from natural hybridization is nothing more than an erroneous
assumption. We are in reality,
observing a process of natural selection, somewhere along on its evolutionary
path. It has been our traditional
training which points to the natural hybridization hypothesis, not the reality
of fact, especially when the paucity of proven, naturally occurring hybrids in
the genus Paphiopedilum are considered.
Just
exactly where are all the ‘natural hybrid’ Paphiopedilum plants?
In
addition to the criteria listed above, which includes all the other well-known
and relatively stable species, we are faced with the prospect of dealing with
the categorizing of other small groups of plants many think actually are the
result of natural hybridization.
As an example, we see P. herrmannii displaying a narrow range of flower
colors, flower shapes and sizes (but having a much wider variation than a
stable species might display).
Variations like these cause confusion to human observers because we like
to have things we study to behave in a stable mode, just so we can know how to
rightfully classify the conditions that we observe. Unfortunately, the only thing constant with life-forms, is
their change.
Hybrid
populations are not stable, at least from the aspect of their greater
variations in size, colors and forms.
For botanists it is the worst-case scenario. When every plant seems to display some characteristic
differently from the others, or when a small handful of those ‘same
kinds’ of plants are observed, and they are each just slightly different
from the other, we have no rules for what to do.
However,
since we are able to categorize some Paphiopedilum plants into a group we
can name P. herrmannii, but then, when we see an outcast plant which is distinctly
different from many, or even from most of the group of remaining P.
herrmannii
plants, does it then invalidate our grouping? No one seems to have the definitive answer and each author
or observer seems to have his own opinion, or in fact, lack one.
What
I do know, is that I can assemble those plants into a singular group, and that
every observer will agree with me that the particular group does in fact, look
just like a group of P. herrmannii plants. And, aside from the fact that there may be some discussion
about the actual make-up of the individual plants, there will be an agreement
that the group of plants is exactly as I have labeled them.
So
what else is there to discuss? At
some time in the future, the issue of the “true P. herrmannii” might be better
delineated. But at the present
time, what difference does it really make when everyone understands which
plants are in question?
I
do not presume to know exactly what each of its parents were, or if there were
more than two, or if they have introgressively inter-bred, or if they were the
results of hybridization at all.
And neither do I know particularly where they are headed, or if we are
actually observing the ultimate results somewhere within our group of
observable plants or if that singular issue has been finalized as of yet.
In
the interest of clarity, and in order to apply the Test of Logic, I have
determined that since we human observers are capable of seeing nothing more
than a ‘snapshot in history’, in the life of a single type of plant
along its evolutionary cycle, I have decided to view what most observers call
‘natural hybrid’ orchid plants from a strictly pragmatic
mindset. I attach to these
questionable plants, a specific name which identifies them as being of a
singular group, one that is readily identifiable and one which is accepted by
most observers.
And
if this line of thinking just seems a bit too bizarre to some orchidists, what
about the exul/druryii/villosum/insigne/barbigerum/helenae/gratrixianum group
of Paphiopedilum
species that we have already delineated?
Have we seen the end of the line with P. insigne, or P. villosum, or with P.gratrixianum? I think not. I do suspect that we have seen the end of the line with P.
exul
and with P. druryii, but I believe there is a way to go before P. villosum and P. gratrixianum reach their final
forms.
Does
anyone know if these species had a common parentage in the beginning? It would seem strange to me that all
these species had independently achieved their present and similar appearance
simply by the fact of their existence in somewhat close proximity with each
other; rather I am convinced that it strongly points to common ancestry
of each of the above species. But
this does not necessarily signify their origination has anything to do with the
results of hybridization.
And
in the entire Section Cochlopetalum, we have now managed to more or less sort out
those different looking flowers into groups which most everyone will agree upon
as to their specific names. But
this Section is different, since there does not appear to be any obvious
two-parent hybrid involvment from their origin. It seems that each of the now recognizably different species
have evolved to fit into their own particular and endemic habitat.
This
is, I also believe, the case with P. bullenianum, P. linii, P. celebesense, and P. mohrianum. as well as for the
plant I have labeled P. ceramense.
And the Subgenus Parvisepalum presents yet other questions which still need
further study, as do other species within the Genus Paphiopedilum.
But
shouldn’t the idea that many of these species that we think are the results
of natural hybridization be replaced with the concept of natural selection, or
that of transitional species? This
would, for one thing, help to eliminate those embarrassing wrong guesses we all
seem to have made when the outcome of artificial hybridization shows us such
different results than those we expected.
The
fact of the matter is, pollinators are local. The possibility certainly has existed for many millennia,
that natural forces of nature might have blown countless numbers of pollinators
into far distant lands to effect their pollination on a different species of Paphiopedilum orchids. But where are the results of that
probability? We should find
numerous examples of that outcome.
Their
absence points to the obvious reality that there are few natural hybrid Paphiopedilum orchids. But why is it that we insist that
groups such as P. herrmannii MUST be a natural hybrid? Particularly when they are found in
such large numbers, and from such a wide spread area. What’s wrong with the other answer? The one that states that it is a
species in evolution from its own pool of genes, perhaps one in a transitional
stage, but still a valid one as we view it today? Or should we just invalidate those plants by refusing to
give them their own epithet?
Whenever
we find only one, or even several plants we suspect of originating from two
parents, we might be observing either the final unsuccessful results of
that outcome, or we could be seeing the very beginning of development of a new
species. How are we to know? Finding a tiny number of ‘natural hybrid’ plants
cannot offer much clarity.
But
when we see large numbers of similar plants, such as we find with P.
herrmannii,
there can be only one reality.
That reality is the fact that it is a successful developing
species, on its way to finality (if there ever is a finality). How could we be so limited in our
thinking that the process of evolution is not involved? And since we are compelled to identify
it, and to discuss its existence, we need to utilize the methods and the tools
which I have presented herein, in order to establish a certain degree of
clarity about those plants. This
eliminates chaos.
The
bottom line for this discussion is for people to think in terms of simplicity
which, by far, most orchid horticulturists already do. Confusion only causes chaos and it
destroys intelligent discourse, so why bother with things which are not
obvious? Since no one is certain
that anyone in the future will accept what we have declared as
‘truth’ today, at least our own truths are known to us if we follow
these principles of clarity, and we can freely discuss them without confusion,
today.
There are significant problems in other areas as well. Since the modern interest in orchids
began, we can find numerous examples of both common usage and inaccuracies,
whereby problematic names of plants in botany and in horticulture have
continuously recurred. When these
errors are revealed, a long history of common usage may be afforded precedence,
particularly so if there has been an equally long history of the use of the
epithet in hybridization. While
this may perplex followers of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(ICBN) and its man-made rules of classification, the problem of how to assure
the changes on labels in countless greenhouses worldwide, as well as to the
previously published lists of orchid hybrids, simply makes name conservation a
pragmatic one.
Additionally,
species whose generic or specific designations have been universally accepted
over a longer time ought not to have them changed today just as a matter of
‘house-cleaning.’ It
only adds to the chaos when now there is the need for orchidists to
continuously search for the most current literature in order to locate a more
correct name for a species. This
is particularly problematic for people wishing to make hybrids. It is equally chaotic and even more
unacceptable, for some botanists to search for those specific identities which,
by one author’s opinion, just might fit more readily into another genus
or sub-classification, simply as a means to see their own name in print.
This
is not to say that incorrect names should not be changed, because there
certainly are compelling reasons for correcting oversights and mistakes. But changing a classification or name
just to reflect one’s current beliefs, or to maintain one’s
employment position or worse, simply for the sake of change, needs careful
consideration and it must be done only when necessary and when it can be
demonstrated that it will produce a more clear understanding.
As
far as the actual methods by which a flower should be identified, its overall
appearance must be given heavy consideration, more so than to small differences
between just one or two of its less significant parts. This includes the practice of
attributing the individual characteristics of the Paphiopedilum staminode as the most
significant determining factor for its identification.
But
in reality, the staminode itself might be a significant factor in determining
the identity of a species, since I suspect that it is a place of origin for
those pheromone-like fragrances, which, further study as to their significance
might possibly reveal those fragrances to be a most accurate and decisive
identifying character for a species.
(If they did not originate from the staminode, pollinators would be
attracted to any part of the Paphiopedilum flower and would not fall into the
pouch, thereby invalidating the purpose of that entrapment mechanism.)
Besides,
there are a large number of Paphiopedilum species with staminodes that are nearly
identical, and yet whose flowers are quite dissimilar.
Color,
fragrance, size and form, including entrapment pathways and mechanisms, are
criteria which must be given careful consideration. Spots and dots, and their color, arrangement, numbers
and size must also be included.
Until we have more clarity about the significance of floral fragrances,
viewing the flower as through the rudimentary eye of a pollinator would be a
most helpful means in determining the importance of these criteria.
In
fact from the beginning, most humans have always regarded flower form and color
to be the first, and most important identifying criteria used to classify a
plant. We have also realized that
it is what attracts a particular pollinator. If botanists would continue to use these same ideas, and to
apply them steadfastly to our methods of classification, then a twist in a
petal, or changes in sizes and numbers of dots and stripes, or variations in
colors must be given high priority when determining the final classification
and delineation for a species’ identity.
This
must be the natural occurrence (lacking more evidence of the significance of
fragrances), otherwise there would be a multitude of natural hybrids found in
the wild, produced by non-discriminant pollinators. As it is, we do find, from time to time, plants which might
be ‘natural hybrids’.
But if, as some botanists claim, a few differences in size and shape, or
in the sizes and numbers of dots, spots and stripes are not very important, it
would then indicate that pollinators were not discriminating. But where are the multitudes of natural
hybrids which would support their claim?
Or,
perhaps in these areas the pollinators are less discriminating. Or maybe it is because in those areas
there are more species of animals capable of effecting pollination. But it does point to the fact, in a
remarkable and significant manner, that there are very few natural hybrids
produced in nature, if any at
all.
The
reality of discriminant pollinators then, adds support to my conclusion that
plant species must be divided by their differences rather than by their
similarities. We must decide just
which identification criteria carry more significance.
While
not a standard tool, the structure of the plant itself can provide excellent
clues as to its specific identity.
With Paphiopedilum orchids, it is possible to identify essentially
all the species when out of bloom just by examining the leaves and the habit of
the plant. Several closely related
species are often more distinguishable by their vegetative differences than by
their floral characteristics.
This
is especially noticeable in the plants in the Section Cochlopetalum, such as P.
glaucophyllum,
named in reference to the glaucous, or powdery coating on its leaves. Plants of this species stand out from
any others in the genus and are readily identifiable simply by viewing its
leaves. Other differences in
foliage are apparent in each of the remaining members of the Section. Of course, the question then becomes;
“What about the faintly noticeable powdery coating on some of the
plants of P. moquetteanum? Or, What
about the checkered-, non-checkered leaves of P. liemianum?”
Dr.
Fowlie made frequent references to the usefulness of plant habit as a tool, and
Dr. Cribb has also done so. Many
of the identities of the ‘album’ types of Paphiopedilum species (some of which
I believe are incorrectly labeled) might be more correctly and easily
determined by addressing their plant habit characteristics.
I
recommend that plant habit in Paphiopedilum orchids should be used
as an important identifying tool for their classification. However, since many of these
differences cannot be easily described, or even illustrated in a single
photograph, but must be viewed from different perspectives physically, I have
chosen not to include photographs of plant habits in this edition. Botanists can contend with actual
methods by which this tool might be utilized in practice.
Chromosome
counts can tell us something about a species’ lineage or relationships to
some degree, but they are problematic to acquire and to interpret and need much
further study to become more relevant.
I have verified the counts of only a few of them myself and have decided
to omit them from this revised Second Edition. In time, the use of DNA might prove to be a helpful tool,
but at present it is not available for general use. This entire business of molecular investigation is
diversionary in my mind, for the answers we seek are to be found in the methods
of identification and classification such as the ones I have described in this
dissertation, not in an attempt to link (consolidate) them to one another
There
is another helpful means by which we can classify Paphiopedilum species, however it
might only be used as a guide.
When hybrids are made using certain pairs of species, such as P.
superbiens
and P. curtisii,
or P. hirsutissimum and P. esquirolei, certain discerning genetic traits, passed on
by each parent separately, can sometimes be found in their progeny. When those differences are reliably
exhibited and are distinguishable in siblings of each of their hybrids, those
differences ought to be sufficient criteria to be used as a tool for
species-level separation.
The
fact that some species exhibit more, or less pronounced characteristics than
others should not deny the use of any specific tool, simply because it does not
apply to all the species in a genus.
Dr.
Fowlie often argued his case to me, for his practice of splitting species
according to their small differences.
He said that if every single plant on Earth had a specific name, there
would be no confusion about which particular plant was under scrutiny. It is a compelling idea, but
impractical. I have however, for a
long time agreed with his concept of recognizing (splitting) species according
to their differences, rather than lumping them together by their similarities,
since the practice more clearly defines our references.
If
a purpose of plant taxonomy was to obfuscate our understanding of the
identities of the different kinds and types of plants found in Nature, then I
might agree that lumping plants with similar characteristics together is a good
idea. However, it only makes good
sense to clearly separate and define our references in order to gain a more
complete understanding of our studies, therefore, the splitting of species into
clearly defined, unmistakable groups, must logically take precedence.
Read
what the Royal Horticultural Society says about the subject on their own Web
site: “The aim of plant nomenclature is to provide every kind of plant
with an internationally agreed name that applies only to that particular plant.”
(www.rhs.org.uk/research/registration_orchids.asp)
Botanists
whose habit it is to lump species together demonstrate either a lack of
understanding (possibly as a result of relying too much on long-dead
specimens), or a lack of courage.
Or perhaps they are simply unthinking. The taxonomic process by necessity, involves self-reflection
(to deliberate one’s own belief systems), critical thinking (to analyze
the reasonableness of different ideas), and evaluation (to select the most
reasonable model). Botanists who follow
archaic ideas have simply failed to produce a better understanding, in the
minds of many orchidists. In any
case, such methods cannot stand the Test of Logic and must be discarded for the
Principle of Clarity. Who could
argue differently?
These are the many useful tools which we can use to classify our
plants, and to my way of thinking, the more precisely we define the species,
the more clarity about them will be established. Attempting to force species into the classifications a few
botanists have prepared for them does not always work, no matter how much we
hope it might, and botanists are frequently forced into an awkward and
sometimes illegitimate compromise when they make their final
determinations.
I
look forward to a time when a more universal study of colors, fragrances,
specific pollinators, plant habit and associated fungi will be combined and
adopted, and they will be in general use, not just for orchids, but also for
all plant genera and species.
Besides,
I have yet to find any convincing argument that would persuade me to agree that
botanists must use the same tools for identifying and classifying orchids as
are used for other flowering plants.
And the problem of how to convince today’s botanists of the need
to adapt to the changing world around them, through the use of modern tools for
plant identification, is an enigma.
It is completely understandable that the time and money spent to obtain
their education has firmly imbedded the methods and rules they were taught into
their minds.
Of
course, isn’t this the paradox?
Botanists want a stable classification system, yet plants keep changing!
Unlike
for many science and medical, and other doctors, there are no scientifically
recognized sources of new techniques or ideas that can offer them ongoing
floods of innovative methods and thoughts, outside the hobbyist level at least,
in the study of orchids.
Unfortunately, I think many botanists are doomed to remain in a
continued state of stagnation in their discipline until, as with Newton’s
First Law of Motion, outside forces cause them to change their direction.
But
perhaps it is time to remove Botany from the realm of Science and to place it
into that of Art. At least Art is
where the creativity of some botanists might be recognized and accepted more
readily since their subjective ideas will not be so controversial, or to become
objects of question. Science deals
with hard facts, and since plant species can exhibit more variables than would
be acceptable in most all scientific disciplines, this just seems like such a
logical placement, particularly in view of the never ending streams of changes
to names we see. I think that we
should just switch categories, as it will more closely align the study of
orchids to its own reality.
This
ought to please both scientists and artists. And it would of course, make everyone’s life much
easier since in our own minds, we could just give our plants their own name on
a daily basis, and we’d never have to write another plant label. Or, we could just write a million of
them!
Thoughtful consideration of the above questions
can only add weight to my own argument for the utilization of new tools and
methods, and for my use of them in this book. In this Revised Second Edition of this manual I have made
use of many of these tools, and I have retained nearly all the same names of
the Paphiopedilum
species as were in the First Edition.
For the newest species, those discovered since this book was first
published in 1984, I have generally chosen to use the most logical and commonly
accepted epithets. For others,
some of questionable origin, I have included a photograph only.
At
first glance it would seem that I have only added more chaos to the foundation
of knowledge of Paphiopedilum orchids.
But those controversial principles of culture, which I presented in the
First Edition, have now been broadly accepted and are in common use today. It is my belief that the solid
foundation for Paphiopedilum culture is now established. A claim which is given added support by
the fact that those same principles of culture which I defined for
paphiopedilums, have now been applied to the culture of numerous other genera
of orchids, as can be found in recently published articles, and by many
different authors.
Since
in the taxonomic world, this book is viewed as a cultural book and not one of
scientific importance, my specific concepts may carry less weight in that
quarter than those opinions expressed in taxonomy-based literature. But principles I have presented for the
identifications of the species will reveal a logical basis which can be
universally understood and acceptable.
This will particularly be the case when the use of newer tools such as
flower colors and fragrances, plant habit, pollinator relationships,
host-specific Mycorrhiza, entrapment mechanisms and others, are studied, accepted
and implemented. This defines The
Principle of Clarity. And the
concept of species consolidation can no longer be maintained because it cannot
support The Test of Logic.
And
since this book will be used more by horticulturists than by botanists, my
purpose in offering clarity, and by providing the names that are more commonly
accepted and are in common use has been met. Botanists will undoubtedly continue to argue their
differences, and perhaps more changes will be seen in a future edition of this
book.
While
it seems to cause those paphiopedilums little concern, we humans seem to
get all upset about it when there is such disharmony associated with those
changes in classification. And for
the reader who is disturbed by my thoughts, these are my opinions which I have
expressed, however right they might be.
I doubt that everyone will ever agree on
the ‘correct’ names for each of the species, but if you identify
your flower with one of my photos, at least everyone else who has this book
will understand exactly, which plant it is under discussion.
Lance
A. Birk
Santa
Barbara, California
July
30, 2004
www.lancebirk.com