Forum Werkgroep Europese orchideeën (WEO)

Kan je van een synoniem ondersoorten hebben.

groet,
Jan

Hoi Jan,

ik denk dat ik je vraag niet begrijp, sorry. Heb je een specifiek voorbeeld dat aanleiding is voor deze vraag?

groeten, Mark

kijk eens naar http://observado.org/soort/view/152813

Wat ik hier vreemd vind is dat Ophrys sphegodes als synoniem voor Ophrys araneola wordt gepresenteerd, terwijl dit ofwel verschillende soorten zijn, of araneola is een ssp. van sphegodes.

Ik houd mij niet zo bezig met taxonomische indelingen, en veel liever met de verspreiding en ecologie van de soorten. Maar sphegodes een synoniem van araneola, dat gaat er bij mij niet in.

Of het kan?

Geen idee, observado.org vindt - kennelijk - van wel.

Zie: http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-140784

Mogelijk dat Observado.org de officiële benamingen van bovenvermelde database aanhoudt.

names do tent to change, as we investigate more... up to 2003, ''Οphrys arenaola'' was a synonym of O. sphegodes, then in Pedersen & Faurholdt (2007) it was a synonym of O. sphegodes ssp. litigiosa, now it is considered a different subspecies. O. sphegodes is very very variable, these are normal. Also the original literature is a nightmare.
I.e. here s the protologue of 'O. araneola'
http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro ... &Pagina=30
and here the sorry excuse of illustration it comes with
http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro ... Pagina=117

M. Janssen schreef: Mogelijk dat Observado.org de officiële benamingen van bovenvermelde database aanhoudt.

Ja dat is bepaald geen fijne database van Kew:

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-141232

of course Ophrys holoserica (Burm.f.) Greuter is a synonym of O. apifera... the basionym of Ophrys holoserica (Burm.f.) Greuter
is Orchis holoserica (Burm.f.) published here
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item ... 5/mode/1up
and sets as an iconotype Haller's fig. 5
which is here
http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro ... Pagina=204
and this is of course an O. apifera.
The interpretation of anyone, of what a name is, is not above the intent of the first person to publish the name.... (except if someone makes a proposal to conserve the name with a new type and it passes).

Marios,
You are not pulling my leg here are you? That figure of Haller is showing a typical holoserica or it's synonym fuciflora if you want. I don't see any of the characteristics of an apifera in it. It could be of course that I am completely missing something as I am not used to scroll these old books and like it more to get acquainted with orchids in the field not minding the names so much except for the use of sharpening the observation. I do thank you however for the addition of these links. It is very instructive.

Fig. 4 en 5 zijn O. apifera. Ziet ernaar uit dat zowel O. apifera en O. holoserica zijn beschreven als O. fuciflora.

Jansenn is right... fig 5 is an O. apifera and fig. 5 says the protologue (not 1266 which is the number of the whole illustration which is dominated by O fuciflora). Just in case, if anyone has any doubt on what state is the literature...

I do agree that f5 and maybe f4 has some, not all the characteristics of an O. apifera. Looking at the other illustrations however it is not the intend to put two species in one picture but rather to show the flowers from different angles. It is quite realistic though that they managed to make orchid watching as difficult on paper as it is in the field

figure 5 has a style tip shaped '~' there is only one Ophrys with that thing... and it is not O. fuciflora.
But yes, it is a nightmare, with all the thousands of names going around.

But yes, it is a nightmare, with all the thousands of names going around.

All over the world you mean?

these are millions of names... in species occuring in Greece, the estimate of names (valid + synonyms) is about 3300 for orchids