Dendrochilum aurantiacum
 

Does anyone know anything about this species? It is listed on an Italian
seller's site, but I can't seem to find it anywhere else. It is listed as
an orange (obviously) miniature.
--
Reka

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02.01.04

Dendrochilum aurantiacum
 

Reka,

I quick google search brought up quite a few hits. This site is informative:

http://www.orchidspng.com/Dendrochilum.html

It appears to be the type species for Dendrochilum.

-Eric in SF

"Reka" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know anything about this species? It is listed on an Italian
seller's site, but I can't seem to find it anywhere else. It is listed as
an orange (obviously) miniature.

Dendrochilum aurantiacum
 

"Eric Hunt" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Reka,

I quick google search brought up quite a few hits. This site is
informative:

http://www.orchidspng.com/Dendrochilum.html

It appears to be the type species for Dendrochilum.

Thanks, Eric. Uh...what *does* type species mean??? And is there a picture
somewhere? I couldn't find anything.
--
Reka

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
http://www.rolbox.it/hukari/index.html



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02.01.04

Dendrochilum aurantiacum
 

"Reka" wrote in message
...
"Eric Hunt" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Reka,
[snip]
It appears to be the type species for Dendrochilum.

Thanks, Eric. Uh...what *does* type species mean??? And is there a
picture
somewhere? I couldn't find anything.

In layman's terms "type species" refers to a "species" a given taxonomist
has identified as being most characteristic of a given genus.

Nothing earth shattering. It can be a handy reference, in some contexts,
and it is often used in major taxonomix reviews, but in my view it isn't
very important.

The big problem with the idea is that it is extremely difficult to develop a
universally applicable definition of the term "species". It is no surprise,
then that for any given taxon, whether species, variety, genus or family or
order, there are usually at least as many ideas of how many species,
varieties, genera, &c. there are as there are taxonomists. As a result,
taxonomists are as much a PITA for working ecologists as they are for
horticulturalists. In both cases, the near constant changing of names is a
bit nuisance, and for theoretical biologists like me, it seems so
unnecessary since there is no solid theoretical basis for the way taxonomy
has been practiced in recent decades. As good as Christenson's work on
phals is, I see no good theoretical reason for preferring his
classifications of those of his contemporaries and predecessors. I am sure
if I had a chance to talk to him face to face, we could have lots of fun
arguing over all this. ;-)

HTH

Ted