Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw.

[Saroj Kasaju]

Dear Members,

Location:  Shubhakuna, Surkhet, West Nepal 

Date: 30 May 2023

Elevation 600 m.

Habit : Wild

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Saroj Kasaju]

[Saroj Kasaju]

[Saroj Kasaju]

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Saroj Kasaju]

Nepali Name : हरजोर Harajor

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:54 PM Saroj Kasaju <kasaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

[J.M. Garg]

Thanks, Saroj ji

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[Pankaj Kumar]

Very pretty. Either Cymbidium aloifolium or Cymbidium bicolor. I will go for latter.

Best regards

Pankaj

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you Dr. Kumar. C. bicor has got no distribution for Nepal !

Saroj Kasaju

[Pankaj Kumar]

No, the species has been misidentified for a long. Some believe that aloifolium has dark brown-black bands on the petals and sepals, and leaves are narrower, while bicolor has very faint bands on petals and sepals and leaves are broader.

Depends on which concept you follow.

Pankaj

[Saroj Kasaju]

OK Dr. Kumar.  We had an earlier discussion about this . Just have a look 

https://efloraofindia.com/2011/02/23/cymbidium-bicolor/

https://efloraofindia.com/2022/09/19/cymbidium-crassifolium/

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Pankaj Kumar]

Yes sir. Yes this is another name, Cymbidium crassifolium. I believe there are some issues regarding identification. bicolor var. bicolor was described from India and then there was bicolor var. obtusum and var. pubescens. I imagine how come all three varieties are in India.

As I said in some other conversation, Kew checklist of POWO do not contain words from GOD! They do have mistakes, or may be they are right and there is something I am unable to understand.

[Saroj Kasaju]

OK Dr. Kumar !

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Prejith Sampath]

This is a little write-up I had done a long time back. There is a lot of confusion surrounding the nomenclature of C.bicolor and C.aloifolium which I have made an attempt to analyze in this blog and in the comments. Please feel free to take a look. 

https://presam77.blogspot.com/2011/04/cymbidium-aloifolium.html

[Mahadeswara]

Beautiful pictures and a write-up. Thanks for sharing.

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you Dr. Sampath for additional information. However, it is always confusing for me 

between these two species.

Saroj Kasaju

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "eFloraofIndia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indiantreepi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/6c018b6e-4245-4ac3-90d7-0beaf114b280n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prejith Sampath]

Presently I think the classification is made based on the labellum pattern. C.aloifolium has stripes while C.bicolor has blotches on the labellum. The subspecies of bicolor have different flower shapes. I will post a few pictures from Du Puy later. 

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you Dr. Sampath !

Saroj Kasaju

[Mandru Ramesh Chowdary]

Thank you sampath sir for information

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CAEf%3DytRs_JroyPqtGNwRbH6YbvAeSbS3x6XDJKejXDkUDinS%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prejith Sampath]

Comparison of species with belt like leaves

[Prejith Sampath]

[Prejith Sampath]

[Prejith Sampath]

[Prejith Sampath]

[Saroj Kasaju]

According to the last close up image it looks like Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw., is it ?

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/CAE%3DQGwEO6uYSWiq4VB6ckyLFeGtne%3DKunpwqd-xvs%2BaGkT0uXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mandru Ramesh Chowdary]

Yes, it is! Cymbidium alifolium saroj sir 

according to the lip structure..., 

Thank you

[Saroj Kasaju]

Thank you Chowdary Ji !

Saroj Kasaju

[Pankaj Kumar]

Somehow my mail didn't go to the group!! Maybe because of big attachments. So attaching my empty reply here for the record.

........

  Thank you Prejith for the details. Long time no see doc. 

I am not criticizing you and as I said before who follows whose concept is their choice. Secondly, no people at Kew do make mistakes too. There are around 80,000 orchid names but only around 30,000 are accepted. I am sure more than 1/2 of the orchid names were given by someone at some point of time associated with Kew.

But please remember, what you are talking about is the concept of Du Puy and Cribb and not the original concept. In the same book, C. bicolor var. pubescens and var. obtusum comes as a sister to other species and a bit away from aloifolium on page 61. They may need to go back and correct that first or explain why they are not sisters to each other. Strangely, on page 122 they include the name Epidendrum aloides  (attached here) under the synonymy of C. aloifolium (see plate below). This former species was described with a very good illustration, which doesnt match with the illustration Du Puy and Cribb provided. So how to trust their treatment.

The original concept of Cymbidium aloifolium came from Hortus Malabaricus written by Van Rheede in 1669. It was named 'Kansjiram marvara' and has an illustration of the plant, t. 8, and a description on page 17.

This was used by Linne (1753) in giving the binomial name Epidendrum aloifolium. In the original drawing, there is a drawing of the lip, which looks smaller than the column or slightly longer. Even the side lobes of the lip are shorter than the column. I do agree that Van Rheede's illustration (attached here) is not a perfect one, but it is what it is. Imagine, everyone (Du Puy and Cribb; Seth; Seidenfaden etc....... there is a long list) says that the side lobe is longer than the column in C. aloifolium, but it is shorter in Van Rheedes's drawing which is the type for this name. WHO WILL YOU ACCEPT? In one of the pages shared by Prejith, there are line drawings of both species. You can see in bicolor the length of side lobes of labellum is shorter than the column, but that matches with aloifolium instead, no?

Later in 1799 Swartz gave the name Cymbidium aloifolium to this plant.

I would say, can you measure the width of the broadest and the narrowest leaf and tell me the dimensions?

Rest I would say, the name of this plant is based on your concept of the name. The West is not always right. Sometimes, we need to stand up and study ourselves. Please do not follow someone without understanding the truth.

This is not to criticize anyone. We always come to this discussion on this species and I always walk on the other side of the road, alone, because I am a taxonomist and I do taxonomy following the proper processes involved. 

Pankaj

......

On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 16:54, Pankaj Kumar <sahani...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Prejith for the details. Long time no see doc. 

I am not criticizing you and as I said before who follows whose concept is their choice. Secondly, no people at Kew do make mistakes too. There are around 80,000 orchid names but only around 30,000 are accepted. I am sure more than 1/2 of the orchid names were given by someone at some point of time associated with Kew.

But please remember, what you are talking about is the concept of Du Puy and Cribb and not the original concept. In the same book, C. bicolor var. pubescens and var. obtusum comes as a sister to other species and a bit away from aloifolium on page 61. They may need to go back and correct that first or explain why they are not sisters to each other. Strangely, on page 122 they include the name Epidendrum aloides  (attached here) under the synonymy of C. aloifolium (see plate below). This former species was described with a very good illustration, which doesnt match with the illustration Du Puy and Cribb provided. So how to trust their treatment.

The original concept of Cymbidium aloifolium came from Hortus Malabaricus written by Van Rheede in 1669. It was named 'Kansjiram marvara' and has an illustration of the plant, t. 8, and a description on page 17.

This was used by Linne (1753) in giving the binomial name Epidendrum aloifolium. In the original drawing, there is a drawing of the lip, which looks smaller than the column or slightly longer. Even the side lobes of the lip are shorter than the column. I do agree that Van Rheede's illustration (attached here) is not a perfect one, but it is what it is. Imagine, everyone (Du Puy and Cribb; Seth; Seidenfaden etc....... there is a long list) says that the side lobe is longer than the column in C. aloifolium, but it is shorter in Van Rheedes's drawing which is the type for this name. WHO WILL YOU ACCEPT? In one of the pages shared by Prejith, there are line drawings of both species. You can see in bicolor the length of side lobes of labellum is shorter than the column, but that matches with aloifolium instead, no?

Later in 1799 Swartz gave the name Cymbidium aloifolium to this plant.

I would say, can you measure the width of the broadest and the narrowest leaf and tell me the dimensions?

Rest I would say, the name of this plant is based on your concept of the name. The West is not always right. Sometimes, we need to stand up and study ourselves. Please do not follow someone without understanding the truth.

This is not to criticize anyone. We always come to this discussion on this species and I always walk on the other side of the road, alone, because I am a taxonomist and I do taxonomy following the proper processes involved. 

Pankaj

Du Puy and Cribb's plate below:

[Prejith Sampath]

Have been a little busy Pankaj. I come back once in a while to stay sane. 

I agree on this with you. My blog also mentions the same. I just posted Du Puy & Cribbs' version because I didn't want to sound biased. Linnaeus' Epidendrum aloifolium was based on Rheede's Kansjiram Maravara and anyone who visits the type locality can easily see which plant Rheede was referring to (it is so common here). Secondly I understand that the authors from Kew never visited the type locality, instead choosing to visit Sri Lanka to make their observations of the species which blocks out the entire perspective for them and puts them at a disadvantage in decision making. In simple words they never walked along the path that Van Rheede took and for that primal reason they are wrong. But unfortunately what they have created is a huge mess not because it just involves interchanging the name of two species but because they have included two other species as subspecies under one of the entities. Hoya ovalifolia from the Hortus is another mess, but that I guess is a story for another day.

Love, 

Prejith

[Pankaj Kumar]

Thank you doc.

Both species are found in the Malabar region and where exactly the type collected from is not known. But yes it would be a good idea to have a look around.

There were many such issues in the past as I know of them and in many other groups. But very few Indian botanists have even tried to rectify these, instead, they just followed their predecessors. I will talk about two such issues related to Indian orchids in my next article. I have yet to touch Cymbidium. Too much work but no job and no money to sit and work peacefully.

Take care

Pankaj

[Prejith Sampath]

Only one is common Pankaj. The other, namely the one this discussion is based upon is extremely rare. I have never seen it in the wild and possibly grows at higher elevations. I have only seen a collected specimen growing on a tree in a British bungalow in Mattancherry. 

[J.M. Garg]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Pankaj Kumar <sahani...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 03:25
Subject: Re: [efloraofindia:454548] Re: Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw.
To: Saroj Kasaju <kasaj...@gmail.com>, Mandru Ramesh Chowdary <mandrurame...@gmail.com>, J.M. Garg <jmg...@gmail.com>, efloraindia <indian...@googlegroups.com>, Dinesh Valke <dinesh...@gmail.com>, Gurcharan Singh <sing...@gmail.com>, Prejith.... chillin' in de rain <pres...@gmail.com>

Thank you Prejith for the details. Long time no see doc. 

I am not criticizing you and as I said before who follows whose concept is their choice. Secondly, no people at Kew do make mistakes too. There are around 80,000 orchid names but only around 30,000 are accepted. I am sure more than 1/2 of the orchid names were given by someone at some point of time associated with Kew.

But please remember, what you are talking about is the concept of Du Puy and Cribb and not the original concept. In the same book, C. bicolor var. pubescens and var. obtusum comes as a sister to other species and a bit away from aloifolium on page 61. They may need to go back and correct that first or explain why they are not sisters to each other. Strangely, on page 122 they include the name Epidendrum aloides  (attached here) under the synonymy of C. aloifolium (see plate below). This former species was described with a very good illustration, which doesnt match with the illustration Du Puy and Cribb provided. So how to trust their treatment.

The original concept of Cymbidium aloifolium came from Hortus Malabaricus written by Van Rheede in 1669. It was named 'Kansjiram marvara' and has an illustration of the plant, t. 8, and a description on page 17.

This was used by Linne (1753) in giving the binomial name Epidendrum aloifolium. In the original drawing, there is a drawing of the lip, which looks smaller than the column or slightly longer. Even the side lobes of the lip are shorter than the column. I do agree that Van Rheede's illustration (attached here) is not a perfect one, but it is what it is. Imagine, everyone (Du Puy and Cribb; Seth; Seidenfaden etc....... there is a long list) says that the side lobe is longer than the column in C. aloifolium, but it is shorter in Van Rheedes's drawing which is the type for this name. WHO WILL YOU ACCEPT? In one of the pages shared by Prejith, there are line drawings of both species. You can see in bicolor the length of side lobes of labellum is shorter than the column, but that matches with aloifolium instead, no?

Later in 1799 Swartz gave the name Cymbidium aloifolium to this plant.

I would say, can you measure the width of the broadest and the narrowest leaf and tell me the dimensions?

Rest I would say, the name of this plant is based on your concept of the name. The West is not always right. Sometimes, we need to stand up and study ourselves. Please do not follow someone without understanding the truth.

This is not to criticize anyone. We always come to this discussion on this species and I always walk on the other side of the road, alone, because I am a taxonomist and I do taxonomy following the proper processes involved. 

Pankaj

Du Puy and Cribb's plate below:

--

With regards,
J.M.Garg

[Saroj Kasaju]

Is this  Cymbidium crassifolium Herb.   https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/3455308274 ??

Thank you.

Saroj Kasaju

[Pankaj Kumar]

crassifolium is subsp. obtusum. Could you look at the key? They differentiated pubescens from obtusum (=crassifolium) on the basis of sidelobes being acute,  scape strongly pendulous in pubescens and side lobes obtuse or subacute and scape arching to pendulous in obtusum.

Below is the holotype of pubescens and you will see scape arching to pendulous and the side loves are 100% acute in the illustration.

Below is the type of obtusum (=crassifolium. You can see side lobes are acute.

If I compare these two I can see the labellum is shorter in obtusum, leaves are wider and seems the petals and sepals are lacking black stripes. This grou is confusing and in my opinion there are only two species aloifolium and bicolor and rest should be merged under the two.

To have a proper conclusion i need to see plants in hand.