Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill from
AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat does not
even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any one know if
the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just a clerical
error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the head of the judging
center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I feel your pain.

Thanks,
Pat

Pat Brennan wrote:
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill from
AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat does not
even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any one know if
the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just a clerical
error?

http://www.ipni.org lists Zygopetalum maculatum (H.B. & K.) Garay
published in Orquideologia, V. 189 (1970), and various websites suggest
that it is the currently accepted name for plants labeled Z. mackayi.
Curiously, ipni.org does not list Z. mackayi, but it does list
Zygopetalum mackaii Hook.. I don't know the story behind that
spelling difference.

It looks as though Z. mackayi was described in 1827, but the plant had
already been described as Dendrobium maculatum in 1816. So, even
though the plant has since been moved from Dendrobium to Zygopetalum,
the "maculatum" epithet has priority. Presumably, Garay's 1970 paper
points that out and established Zygopetalum maculatum (with the new
genus name).


Nick

The AOS is now using the Kew Monocot Checklist to determine species names.
The Kew Monocot Checklist shows Z. maculatum as the accepted name. That's
pretty much the end of the story. If you have any questions about an award
you received, you should contact the chair of the judging center that gave
the award.
-danny

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any one
know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just a
clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the head of the
judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I feel your pain.

Thanks,
Pat

Danny,

Bzzt, that's silly. There is no authoritative source for plant names,
period. Everyone publishes and everyone discusses and arguments can be made
pro/con for every name. And now at the start of the era of molecular
studies, names are getting even more uncertain.

This particular instance may have consensus from taxonomists, but there will
be others where Kew is clearly in the wrong and the AOS will just be
perpetuating the error.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

"danny" wrote in message
. ..
The AOS is now using the Kew Monocot Checklist to determine species names.
The Kew Monocot Checklist shows Z. maculatum as the accepted name. That's
pretty much the end of the story. If you have any questions about an
award you received, you should contact the chair of the judging center
that gave the award.
-danny

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any
one know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just
a clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the head of
the judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I feel your
pain.

Thanks,
Pat

I wonder why Kew authorities have decided to accept a name published only in
1970 over one published first in 1827. The acceptance of the oldest
published name is the rule and exception to it are generally explained
someplace to somebody in writing. It seems to be true that spelling errors
and Latin grammatical errors do not supersede the "first name published"
rule. I can't remember my Latin suffix endings so I don't even know if
mackayi has the correct gender ending, so I should be loath to hint that
this might be why the newer name is given precedence.

Zygopetalum mackayi Hook., Bot. Mag. 54: t. 2748 (1827).
Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, Orquideologia 5: 189 (1970).

Oh, I see somebody beat me to it, but I was going to look up this plant on
Kew's site and see what they had to say about it because it is rumored that
AOS has begun to defer to this group of taxomaniacs (read it again) for
plant names. I don't know why this true is or even if it is, but the close
association of RHS with the AOS is undeniable. If it is true, the link to
it becomes an important source of info. And at the risk of being accused of
re-screwing a lightbulk, here is that link again.
http://www.kew.org/wcsp/home.do

It is a helpful link, for what it's worth.

Who do you contact among the AOS/judges to learn what's going on with your
award? I would contact to the head of
the local judging center, isn't that Taylor Slaughter still? ...and ask her
who to speak with. Let the run-around begin there.

Congratulations.

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

Bzzt, that's silly. There is no authoritative source for plant names,
period. Everyone publishes and everyone discusses and arguments can be
made pro/con for every name. And now at the start of the era of molecular
studies, names are getting even more uncertain.

This particular instance may have consensus from taxonomists, but there
will be others where Kew is clearly in the wrong and the AOS will just be
perpetuating the error.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

"danny" wrote in message
. ..
The AOS is now using the Kew Monocot Checklist to determine species
names. The Kew Monocot Checklist shows Z. maculatum as the accepted name.
That's pretty much the end of the story. If you have any questions about
an award you received, you should contact the chair of the judging center
that gave the award.
-danny

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any
one know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is
just a clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the
head of the judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I
feel your pain.

Thanks,
Pat

Al wrote:
I wonder why Kew authorities have decided to accept a name published only in
1970 over one published first in 1827. The acceptance of the oldest
published name is the rule and exception to it are generally explained
someplace to somebody in writing.
(snip)
Zygopetalum mackayi Hook., Bot. Mag. 54: t. 2748 (1827).
Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, Orquideologia 5: 189 (1970).

Hi Al,

See my previous response to Pat. I think the key is that the 1970 name
is Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, not Zygopetalum maculatum
Garay. Kunth apparently named the plant Dendrobium maculatum in 1816,
beating Zygopetalum mackayi by 11 years. Back then, most epiphytic
orchids were shoehorned into a few genera, so it is the "maculatum"
epithet that is significant not the odd use of "Dendrobium." IIRC,
species epithets are usually conserved when a species is moved to a new
genus, so "maculatum" is the oldest published species epithet in this
case.

Presumably, Garay pointed out that "maculatum" is the oldest name for
the plant in question and to explicitly linked it to Zygopetalum.

Nick

Okay. :-) Your other post did not show up yet in my version of this
thread. I don't know if that's odd or not.

I recognized Kunth to be an ancient Taxonomist's name, but that's about as
far that line of thinking took me.

Mostly the stuff that follows the binomial confuses me, but I do know enough
to recognize that it is often a very important part of the binomial's
history and tells a person who can read it a lot of information. In fact,
isn't it true that a correctly written species name really contains at least
some of that publication history and often helps the reader understand just
what plant is being discussed? Something like: Zygopetalum maculatum, Garay
(1970) or such...

I also think, IMHO, that scientists (taxonomists if you will) are fighting
an uphill battle versus "horticulturally" accepted names when collectors and
the general public are concerned, even if these names are scientifically
incorrect. I am not sure where the AOS places itself in this battle. Are
they trying to be more scientific in their approach to species award names
or are they trying to communicate or educate their horticulrally oriented
subscribers. Perhaps the AOS is being sloppy in not sending an explanation,
or correctly written name with publication history to the award recipient
when they change names on the award's bill.

On the other hand serious collectors eventually have to come to terms with
these name issues.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Al wrote:
I wonder why Kew authorities have decided to accept a name published only
in
1970 over one published first in 1827. The acceptance of the oldest
published name is the rule and exception to it are generally explained
someplace to somebody in writing.
(snip)
Zygopetalum mackayi Hook., Bot. Mag. 54: t. 2748 (1827).
Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, Orquideologia 5: 189 (1970).

Hi Al,

See my previous response to Pat. I think the key is that the 1970 name
is Zygopetalum maculatum (Kunth) Garay, not Zygopetalum maculatum
Garay. Kunth apparently named the plant Dendrobium maculatum in 1816,
beating Zygopetalum mackayi by 11 years. Back then, most epiphytic
orchids were shoehorned into a few genera, so it is the "maculatum"
epithet that is significant not the odd use of "Dendrobium." IIRC,
species epithets are usually conserved when a species is moved to a new
genus, so "maculatum" is the oldest published species epithet in this
case.

Presumably, Garay pointed out that "maculatum" is the oldest name for
the plant in question and to explicitly linked it to Zygopetalum.

Nick

I think AOS just wants some kind of list they can use so they don't award
the same plant under multiple names. Every single entry in the Kew list
probably isn't widely accepted, but it's a good starting point. AOS will
probably end up deviating from the Kew list on a small number of species.
-danny

Pat: As best as I can figure, the head of the judging center for the
location where the award was given is the place to start. He or she will
send you to someone more junior, who may send you on to someone even more
junior, but eventually you'll get to the right person if you persevere. If
you try to short-circuit the process and get directly there, you'll probably
end up having to climb the chain back to the top and then back down ...

The name is probably "right" according to AOS at the moment. As a hobbyist,
probably better to just change it (maybe keeping the "old" name on the back
of the tag, in case some taxonomist changes his/her mind). If you're a
professional grower, and intending to clone it, I'd suggest finding some way
to put both names on the tag [either the new or the old in parentheses or
brackets], so your customers can recognize it.

WildCatt is 6+ months behind the changes at RHS, and I really don't see how
they could do what they do any quicker. All these changes have to be making
Helga's life thoroughly miserable.

The AOS/RHS relationship seems to be very elastic -- sometimes close,
sometimes "WHO???"

Best of luck, Kenni


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any one
know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just a
clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the head of the
judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I feel your pain.

Thanks,
Pat

Just label it Zygopetalum maculatum (syn. mackayi). That way you can show
both names and still be "correct".
-danny

"Kenni Judd" wrote in message
...
Pat: As best as I can figure, the head of the judging center for the
location where the award was given is the place to start. He or she will
send you to someone more junior, who may send you on to someone even more
junior, but eventually you'll get to the right person if you persevere.
If you try to short-circuit the process and get directly there, you'll
probably end up having to climb the chain back to the top and then back
down ...

The name is probably "right" according to AOS at the moment. As a
hobbyist, probably better to just change it (maybe keeping the "old" name
on the back of the tag, in case some taxonomist changes his/her mind). If
you're a professional grower, and intending to clone it, I'd suggest
finding some way to put both names on the tag [either the new or the old
in parentheses or brackets], so your customers can recognize it.

WildCatt is 6+ months behind the changes at RHS, and I really don't see
how they could do what they do any quicker. All these changes have to be
making Helga's life thoroughly miserable.

The AOS/RHS relationship seems to be very elastic -- sometimes close,
sometimes "WHO???"

Best of luck, Kenni


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any
one know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is just
a clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the head of
the judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I feel your
pain.

Thanks,
Pat

danny wrote:

Just label it Zygopetalum maculatum (syn. mackayi). That way you can show
both names and still be "correct".
-danny


Perfect!

Thanks all. Check mailed, no phone calls made, no relabeling. But if I
show a mackayi again, I mean a maculatum, I will label it as Danny suggests.
At least they do not want it relabeled as a Den.

Pat


"danny" wrote in message
...
Just label it Zygopetalum maculatum (syn. mackayi). That way you can show
both names and still be "correct".
-danny

"Kenni Judd" wrote in message
...
Pat: As best as I can figure, the head of the judging center for the
location where the award was given is the place to start. He or she will
send you to someone more junior, who may send you on to someone even more
junior, but eventually you'll get to the right person if you persevere.
If you try to short-circuit the process and get directly there, you'll
probably end up having to climb the chain back to the top and then back
down ...

The name is probably "right" according to AOS at the moment. As a
hobbyist, probably better to just change it (maybe keeping the "old" name
on the back of the tag, in case some taxonomist changes his/her mind).
If you're a professional grower, and intending to clone it, I'd suggest
finding some way to put both names on the tag [either the new or the old
in parentheses or brackets], so your customers can recognize it.

WildCatt is 6+ months behind the changes at RHS, and I really don't see
how they could do what they do any quicker. All these changes have to be
making Helga's life thoroughly miserable.

The AOS/RHS relationship seems to be very elastic -- sometimes close,
sometimes "WHO???"

Best of luck, Kenni


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Last Nov I received a CCM for a Zygo mackayi. I just received the bill
from AOS and the plant is listed as Z maculatum. My version of wildcat
does not even show maculatum as a valid Zygopetalum species. Does any
one know if the name on the bill is right (taxonomist at work) or is
just a clerical error? If it is a clerical error, do I call AOS, the
head of the judging center, or the head judge for the show? Kenni, I
feel your pain.

Thanks,
Pat