Danny and Eric - thanks. I had forgotten about that ridiculous
interpretation.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Eric Hunt" wrote in message
...
Ray,

Unfortunately, the USA interpretation of CITES takes the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" interpretation. That means if a species is illegal to
import into the USA, then all hybrids derived are also illegal. Right now
the Vietnamese Paphiopedilums are experiencing this the most. It's my
understanding that Vietnam is not a CITES signatory country, therefore any
species discovered there since CITES went into effect are illegal to own
in the USA, since no CITES export papers can be given by the exporting
country.

Dr. Harold Koopowitz in SoCal is the person to write and ask these
questions - he's quite the authority on CITES. He can be found using
Google.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

"Ray" wrote in message
...
Hybrids are not under the purview of CITES, species are.

Species imported prior to the adoption by the various nations are legal
from an ownership standpoint, assuming you can prove you got them
pre-CITES.

Taxonomists change things around al the time. Phal violacea has been
around forever, but Phal bellina was broken out as its own species far
more recently, so there could be a cross of A x violacea from 1950 that
was made with bellina (violacea fma. Borneo), even though bellina didn't
exist then.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"flosaeris" wrote in message
...
What are the rules about owning a registered hybred (wildcat reg. in
1995) that the parents are apparently considered endangered? The
hybred was registered in 1995 as Paph a X Paph b. When I look the
plant up in google these two parents are listed in many places as
Paph a var b, and even in others that Paph a var b is considered a
new newly discovered species in 2000/1. How can that be if a cross
was registered in 1995?

Thanx