Far be it from me to correct Rob, but I think he may be mistaken.

From the CITES web page:

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

the section on "Orchidaceae" is listed as:

ORCHIDACEAE spp. 8#8 (Except the species included in Appendix I)

Also noted is that "For all of the following Appendix-I species,
seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media,
transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the
Convention."

That "8#8" pertains to "interpretation," specifically:

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/interpret.shtml

"#8 designates all parts and derivatives, except:

a) seeds and pollen (including pollinia);
b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or
liquid media, transported in sterile containers;
c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; and
d) fruits and parts and derivates thereof of artificially
propagated plants of the genus Vanilla;"

So- plants in vitro are specifically exempted (Appendix I and II),
while seeds, pollen, pollinia, cut flowers from propagated plants, and all
parts of propagated Vanilla species are exempted, provided they're in
Appendix II. Seeds of Appendix I are not exempted.

So, if my understanding is correct (and as I've moved a
considerable number of Appendix I plants in sterile culture, labeled as
such, with no CITES paperwork specific to them being Appendix I plants,
I think it is correct), if they're in sterile culture, they are
specifically exempted under the Convention.

However, this is not absolute. The Office of Management Authority
recognizes that some plants of Paphiopedilum vietnamense that have entered
the country came from parent plants that did not have legitimate export
permits. As a result, they are "fruit of the poison tree," and are
illegal. (This does not include those from Antec, as they were not
imported in flask, and are well-documented to have come from plants that
were seized upon import, and the host country denied their return such
that they were then placed in a rescue facility, and used for
propagation.) I have this information first-hand from those at the OMA
that make these sorts of decisions. If my understanding is correct, the
United States is either the only country, or one of two countries, that
accepts this interpretation of CITES. The other opinion is that if they're
in flask, they're exempt regardless of their history; this opinion is
shared by the balance of CITES signatory nations, best as I know.

There are also those that contend the plants of Phrag. kovachii
that have been bought and sold may not be legitimate under the US
interpretation, as there is no proof that they were propagated in Peru,
which issued the export permits for flasked plants. If this is the case,
under US interpretation, these plants and their progeny could be declared
illegal, and acted upon here in the US.

I'm no lawyer, and if you think I am, you need better help than
Usenet can provide.

The address in the header isn't valid. Send no email there.

-AJHicks
Chandler, AZ