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

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

Hybrids may not be directly under the purview of CITES, but if a parent is
illegal in the U.S. then I believe the offspring will also be illegal in the
U.S. Weren't all Paph. vietnamense hybrids illegal until Antec started
making them with their legal plant?
-danny

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

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

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

If you can tell what endangered Paph A and Paph B are and give us your full
name and address we could help you much better.

Thanks in advance,
Garland


"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

How inappropriate. Especially because I don't own the plant,
and I am trying to do the right thing.

Thanks to the others that gave me information. I actually thought
that was the case. I am curious though, what happens when the
person doesn't know what they have. This particular plant, is from
the collection of a deceased person. A very old collector which I
understand isn't that uncommon for these decades old collectors
to have something in their collection that cites doesn't like. The
collection is now in the possession of caretaker, then a bulk was
sold at a society meeting by that caretaker. I was helping this
person find out what they had. I am very confident that all parties
involved don't know what they have. They just bought a bulk of
plants, and this one happened to be in it. The name the plant is
under didn't have any information. It was only when I asked a
friend to look in wildcat to find the parents that it came under the
current category. Then, what to do with the plant. Destroy it?
Even if the parents were legally obtained, due to the death it might
be impossible to find out.

thnx


"GARLAND HANSON" wrote in message
news:yQA2e.34384$mq2.22916@trnddc08...
If you can tell what endangered Paph A and Paph B are and give us your
full
name and address we could help you much better.

Thanks in advance,
Garland


"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

It really depends what the parents are. If you aren't comfortable
discussing that in a public forum then I suggest you find a knowledgeable
person in your area to help advise you. Do you know where the plant
originated? If it has a tag from a nursery you can contact them for more
info. If that particular cross is being sold by any reputable vendors in
the U.S. then you're probably ok. There are only a few Paph. species that
are really illegal. Going back to your original posting, just because some
sellers currently list a parent as "Paph. A var. B" that doesn't mean your
plant was made with "var. B". Most Paph. crosses get remade many times with
different parents. Also, as Ray pointed out there may have already been
"var. B" plants in circulation before that variety was officially named.
-danny

"flosaeris" wrote in message
...
How inappropriate. Especially because I don't own the plant,
and I am trying to do the right thing.

Thanks to the others that gave me information. I actually thought
that was the case. I am curious though, what happens when the
person doesn't know what they have. This particular plant, is from
the collection of a deceased person. A very old collector which I
understand isn't that uncommon for these decades old collectors
to have something in their collection that cites doesn't like. The
collection is now in the possession of caretaker, then a bulk was
sold at a society meeting by that caretaker. I was helping this
person find out what they had. I am very confident that all parties
involved don't know what they have. They just bought a bulk of
plants, and this one happened to be in it. The name the plant is
under didn't have any information. It was only when I asked a
friend to look in wildcat to find the parents that it came under the
current category. Then, what to do with the plant. Destroy it?
Even if the parents were legally obtained, due to the death it might
be impossible to find out.

thnx


"GARLAND HANSON" wrote in message
news:yQA2e.34384$mq2.22916@trnddc08...
If you can tell what endangered Paph A and Paph B are and give us your
full
name and address we could help you much better.

Thanks in advance,
Garland


"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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:24:19 -0800, "flosaeris"
wrote:
This particular plant, is from
the collection of a deceased person. A very old collector which I
understand isn't that uncommon for these decades old collectors
to have something in their collection that cites doesn't like.


Several people have said that although the fruit of the forbidden
is forbidden; grandfathered plants are OK. So the whole thing is
that the hybrid is OLD has been in cultivation for a long time.
And was in cultivation before the plant thru taxonomic
shenanigans became a new discovery. Thus this is not forbidden
but is grandfathered into being OK. That is the way I have heard
it explained. But you have to keep the plant's history and be
able to prove that this is the plant. How I have never heard.

Unless the owner plans to breed with the plant I would not worry.
Keep any inventory, or sale information he/she has listing the
plant as part of this "historic collection". This documentation
goes to proving the plant is an old hybrid. When was it
registered? Was that before the species became Cities listed?
Or is it on cities because it was moved?

SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

flosaeris wrote:
How inappropriate. Especially because I don't own the plant,
and I am trying to do the right thing.

Thanks to the others that gave me information. I actually thought
that was the case. I am curious though, what happens when the
person doesn't know what they have. This particular plant, is from
the collection of a deceased person. A very old collector which I
understand isn't that uncommon for these decades old collectors
to have something in their collection that cites doesn't like. The
collection is now in the possession of caretaker, then a bulk was
sold at a society meeting by that caretaker. I was helping this
person find out what they had. I am very confident that all parties
involved don't know what they have. They just bought a bulk of
plants, and this one happened to be in it. The name the plant is
under didn't have any information. It was only when I asked a
friend to look in wildcat to find the parents that it came under the
current category. Then, what to do with the plant. Destroy it?
Even if the parents were legally obtained, due to the death it might
be impossible to find out.


If the plants were collected more than say 20 years ago, there isn't any
problem. Otherwise, there could be a problem. Hard to say without
knowing specifics. Practically speaking, if you don't sell or exhibit
the plants, there is also no problem. Ethically speaking, I think your
hands are clean. Legally speaking, who knows, I'm not a lawyer.

Under no circumstances destroy the plants. That is just silly. Unless
they are virused, diseased, or just plain ugly flowers (since they are
hybrids). If they were species, I wouldn't destroy them even if the
flowers were ugly. For several reasons. 1) They may be legally
imported before Appendix I took affect. 2) They may not exist in the
wild anymore and you would destroy valuable genetic diversity. 3) They
may be 'poisonous fruit' today, but legitimate in a year or two.

I'm not saying it is good to have illegally imported plants, regardless
of how stupid CITES is when it comes to material that can be easily
propagated (great for animals, remarkably illogical for plants).
Unfortunately, that is the best system we have and the one that is
currently in place, and we have to deal with it. But, once the heinous
crime of illegal importation has been committed, it makes no sense to
compound the error by destroying rare plants. In the ideal world,
collection pressure on plants would be avoided by rapid and hassle free
distribution of legally propagated material. But that world ain't here
right now.

Feel free to contact me off list ), and I'll be happy to
give you my take on the specific plant in question.



--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit