Talk:Leptotes (orchid)/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Dalton Holland Baptista No edit summary |
imported>Dalton Holland Baptista (→Leptotes tenuis and L. pauloensis: new section) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:Actually this was one bit where I could not make a call. I added "partly" since i thought he was probably not actively ignoring it. Ignorance is bliss as they say. I would be happy to remove ignore altogether. It could be written as: "''This new species was included in [[Célestin Alfred Cogniaux]]'s revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was unaware of the variability within the ''Leptotes'' species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ...'''' [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 07:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | :Actually this was one bit where I could not make a call. I added "partly" since i thought he was probably not actively ignoring it. Ignorance is bliss as they say. I would be happy to remove ignore altogether. It could be written as: "''This new species was included in [[Célestin Alfred Cogniaux]]'s revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was unaware of the variability within the ''Leptotes'' species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ...'''' [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 07:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
::That's it! [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | ::That's it! [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
== ''Leptotes tenuis'' and ''L. pauloensis'' == | |||
Despite ''L. tenuis'' is the most rare one, it was the firts to be discovered. When ''Leptotes pauloensis'' was described it mentioned the diferences of color and a slight difference on the callus present on the labellum. Today color variation alone usually is not regarded as enough to stablish a new species, and maybe not even a subspecies. Because these ''Leptotes'' species are hard to find and because the herbarium dried material loose information (like the callus exact shape), many taxonomists were in doubt. BTW, even today that we know well these species, many think it is better if they were classified as a complex of a variable superspecies, rather than three easily distinct species. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 1 March 2009
good article
Hello. I'm actually enjoying what I read here! I hope you will complete it & get it approved soon. The history of its taxonomy is interesting. (Chunbum Park 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
- Oh, thank you. Actually I guess it is about to be considered done. I suppose it needs an English correction and maybe some suggestions about anything I may have forgotten. Sometimes when we are writing about things we know well we just forget to say important things that are pretty much obviuos for us but people less familiar with the subject have no idea about. Is it clear enough? Is there anything missing? I did not talk much about the species as every one of them will have a full article in the future. I do not mention more about culture for the same reason, furthermore culture varies a little from species to species; I'll treat higher classification in depht in Laeliinae article; and Phylogeny is not 100% stable as yet. Oh, yes I will add some extra photos to the article. Cheers, Dalton Holland Baptista 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
intro
I just went through the intro and I'm not sure if "candies aromatizers" is correct. Do you mean "candies and aromatizers"? Chris Day 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I mean it is used as flavoring (I guess this is the right word, hehe, like vanilla). Dalton Holland Baptista 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- That makes more sense, I thought I might be on the wrong track. Chris Day 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the distribution section, I was not sure what you meant by "The distribution of one species is only an assumption". Chris Day 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, Leptotes mogyensis was described solely based on a plant found under culture in the USA. Comparing this plant with the large list of varieties Krakowizer mentioned in a lecture at Círculo Paulista de Orquidófilos, in 1954, Christenson concluded it matched a variety Krakowizer found at Mogy das Cruzes, thus Christenson just implies it is from there, although no collection record does indeed exist. Dalton Holland Baptista 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now I understand, I'll try and capture that into a short sentence. Chris Day 04:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the term "almost imperceptibly prolongate". Could you spell this out a bit more? Chris Day 06:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, its pseudobulbs are abbreviated, cylindrical about the same diameter of the leaves, which are also cylindrical, therefore the place where one ends and another starts are not easity diferentiated because they are very alike. One has to look for the joint to see it, it is not clearly marked. - diferent from a large number of orchids where you have a very clear pseudobulb that looks like with a potatoe and then a completely diferent flat petiolated leave starting over its top. Dalton Holland Baptista 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Floral diagram
Excellent, great choice, loved it! Dalton Holland Baptista 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Doubt
- Quote: "This new species was included in Célestin Alfred Cogniaux's revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was partly ignoring the variability within the Leptotes species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ..."
- Question: is it clear enough in this sentence that Cogniaux was not "aware of" and not that he was "intentionaly ignoring"? Dalton Holland Baptista 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this was one bit where I could not make a call. I added "partly" since i thought he was probably not actively ignoring it. Ignorance is bliss as they say. I would be happy to remove ignore altogether. It could be written as: "This new species was included in Célestin Alfred Cogniaux's revision of Brazilian orchid species, published 1903, but in doing so he was unaware of the variability within the Leptotes species. At the time Cogniaux published his book he had not had ...'' Chris Day 07:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's it! Dalton Holland Baptista 07:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Leptotes tenuis and L. pauloensis
Despite L. tenuis is the most rare one, it was the firts to be discovered. When Leptotes pauloensis was described it mentioned the diferences of color and a slight difference on the callus present on the labellum. Today color variation alone usually is not regarded as enough to stablish a new species, and maybe not even a subspecies. Because these Leptotes species are hard to find and because the herbarium dried material loose information (like the callus exact shape), many taxonomists were in doubt. BTW, even today that we know well these species, many think it is better if they were classified as a complex of a variable superspecies, rather than three easily distinct species. Dalton Holland Baptista 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)