cheekin86

Hydnophytum puffii- what was previously known as sp. needle leaf and Hydnophytum perangustum

18 posts in this topic

Thank you very much for posting the link to this article. It is great to finally be able to put a name and a formal description to a species that is now both popular and well-distributed amongst ant plant collectors.

 

The image of the wild plant is quite different from what we are used to seeing for this genus.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

very good infos  but some problem nevertheless  this DERRICK info :

 

So it is to be an official name if it does FINALLY get published.  Currently we may use Hydnophytum perangustum Jebb & C. R. Huxley in press.  However, for some unknown reason this is taking an extremely long time to be published, but It is evident that copies of Jebb & Huxley's Hydnophytum revision have been shared with some academics.

 

then 2 names for the same species ?

 

may be also H.extendifolium  from borneo ?

 

I am OK with JAY  on the picture , but on the morphological characters  I see tuber subglobose to slightly compressed ovoid ,it could do so , no?

 

jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The image of the wild plant is quite different from what we are used to seeing for this genus.

 

 

 

Not really. I have plants mounted on bark that look like a good match.

When potted, this species exhibits quite different characteristics.

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

very good infos  but some problem nevertheless  this DERRICK info :

 

So it is to be an official name if it does FINALLY get published.  Currently we may use Hydnophytum perangustum Jebb & C. R. Huxley in press.  However, for some unknown reason this is taking an extremely long time to be published, but It is evident that copies of Jebb & Huxley's Hydnophytum revision have been shared with some academics.

 

then 2 names for the same species ?

 

may be also H.extendifolium  from borneo ?

 

I am OK with JAY  on the picture , but on the morphological characters  I see tuber subglobose to slightly compressed ovoid ,it could do so , no?

 

jeff

 

No, the paper by Low et al has been published. That is what counts.

Rule of priority.

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify...

 

I meant that the wild plant shown has a very different look from images we have posted here of other species in this genus, i.e. small caudex with long, wiry branches and needle leaves. I agree that this species is very variable-looking depending on how it has been grown. Plants that are lightly-fertilized do tend to have smaller caudexes in relation to their canopies than those that have abundant nutrients available to them at all  times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Good news that something move! Another plant correctly named, I love it.

I'm personnally happy that this species are published by malesian people. I not always feel easy when american or european scientists publish all the diversity in the other countries.

 

No, the paper by Low et al has been published. That is what counts.

Rule of priority.

All the best

Andreas

 

Actually, H. perangustum is still a nomen nudum, as it had never been officially published... We only know this name by word of mouth.

I think it could be an humility lesson for Jebb and Huxley... They never want to share their work, announced in 2009.

 

All the best,

Aurélien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

While this is indeed a good thing.

but we must also take into account other similar Hydnophytum has this P. Perangustum in different herbaria that can be seen

compare 2 different plant has no interest for me.

 

I would have like it compares this P.puffii  with P. extendifolium   for example :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

Bonjour

 

While this is indeed a good thing.

but we must also take into account other similar Hydnophytum has this P. Perangustum in different herbaria that can be seen

compare 2 different plant has no interest for me.

 

I would have like it compares this P.puffii  with P. extendifolium   for example :rolleyes:

 

If you search for Hydnophytum "extendifolium", you will soon remark that it's also a nomen nudum...

 

It had never been published:

 

Here, IPNI:

 

http://www.ipni.org/ipni/advPlantNameSearch.do?find_family=&find_genus=hydnophytum&find_species=&find_infrafamily=&find_infragenus=&find_infraspecies=&find_authorAbbrev=&find_includePublicationAuthors=on&find_includePublicationAuthors=off&find_includeBasionymAuthors=on&find_includeBasionymAuthors=off&find_publicationTitle=&find_isAPNIRecord=on&find_isAPNIRecord=false&find_isGCIRecord=on&find_isGCIRecord=false&find_isIKRecord=on&find_isIKRecord=false&find_rankToReturn=all&output_format=normal&find_sortByFamily=on&find_sortByFamily=off&query_type=by_query&back_page=plantsearch

 

And also, WCSP:

 

http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do;jsessionid=E2CC415BFB403B4B8D87366FB1085625

 

Thus, if WCSP haven't yet time to treat H. puffii, you'll see it in IPNI database. All is done: there's perhaps 3 names for the same plant, but 2 of them are only wind.

 

H. perangustum nor H. extendifolium exist, you can forget them.

 

The best,

Aurélien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

but we have some  herbarium bogoriense sheet  with some  registration number ( LEIDEN), it is not sufficient   , find in borneo in 1925 and 1956

 

Furthermore these H.extendifolium  specimen is very well preserved , and very close to this  H."perangustum" and H.puffii

 

JEFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

but we have some  herbarium bogoriense sheet  with some  registration number ( LEIDEN), it is not sufficient   , find in borneo in 1925 and 1956

 

I don't understand: what's the question here?

 

The best,

Aurélien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

it is not a question but a answer

 

for me a registered herbarium sheet is greater than a non-exhaustive list, but that's just my opinion.

 

for IPNI  see here :  IMPORTANT: IPNI does not have information on what are currently accepted names and what are taxonomic (i.e. heterotypic) synonyms. Find this information in floras, monographs, checklists, revisions etc.

 

amicalement

 

jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

for me a registered herbarium sheet is greater than a non-exhaustive list, but that's just my opinion.

 

 

Of course. Thus, in botany, a single registered herbarium sheet is called a nomen nudum and have absolutely no value. If it doesn't have publication, there's no valid name for the plant.

And IPNI is a list of validely named species... If H. extendifolium doesn't appear, that's because it's not rely to any publication.

 


for IPNI  see here :  IMPORTANT: IPNI does not have information on what are currently accepted names and what are taxonomic (i.e. heterotypic) synonyms. Find this information in floras, monographs, checklists, revisions etc.

 

Yes, but that's not the question here. We don't search for a currently accepted name, taht's only an opinion: some botanist could recognize some species and other botanist don't... That's an eternal debate.

Here, IPNI quote only valid names. Not accepted names!

 

The best,

Aurélien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! And I thought Haworthias and Aloes were contentious. I think we have the classic lumper or splitter dichotomy going on here, mixed with a little secrecy and professional botanical bickering. Personally, I'm a splitter but redeem myself with being content to recognise species with a range of varietal splitting. 

 

This exchange reminds me of the 'two' specific epithets for Aloe vera: vera and babadensis. It has been demonstrated that vera was validly published at least 18 days before babadensis. The 'argument' has been going on for more than 200 years, lets hope this one doesn't run as long. Priority of publication must take precedence, therefore, however long perangustum has been kicking around, puffii must prevail as it is properly published. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum.

 

Pay no mind to this. It is just hard-headedness on one individual's part. I think almost everyone who participates here understands that unpublished names are always subordinate to validly published binomials/trinomials. While there are fairly recent examples of long-time and extensive use of names in horticulture ultimately trumping publication date (e.g. the popular indoor Neotropical palm species Chamaedorea seifrizii Burret 1938 prevailing in a published decision over acceptance of C. donnell-smithii Dammer 1905), this is not the case here. Please note that this is one example of a case where the IAPT ruled that publication date did not take precedence over long-time universal usage in horticulture.

 

All that aside, Hydnophytum puffii it is.

 

Cheers,

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour

 

but we have some  herbarium bogoriense sheet  with some  registration number ( LEIDEN), it is not sufficient   , find in borneo in 1925 and 1956

 

Furthermore these H.extendifolium  specimen is very well preserved , and very close to this  H."perangustum" and H.puffii

 

JEFF

 

 

A herbarium sheet with a name tag put on it on is not a publication.

Without a valid publication it's a nomen nudum. These rules are very clear.

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now