New Names aNd combiNatioNs iN orchidaceae from the PhiliPPiNes aNd New GuiNea

in the course of producing cd-RoMs on orchidaceae for the Flora Malesiana project (Schuiteman & de Vogel, 2001, 2002; Agoo et al., 2003), it became apparent that a number of new names or combinations were required. As dissemination in electronic media does not constitute valid publication under the international code of Botanical Nomenclature (greuter et al., 2000, article 29), they are dealt with in the present paper, together with some additional comments where necessary.

distribution -New guinea.Note -Following a suggestion by the first author, Vermeulen examined the type of Phreatia globulosa and found that it was not a Phreatia but a member of Bulbophyl lum section Lepanthanthe Schltr. in his revision of this section, Vermeulen (1993: 89) refrained from making a new combination under Bulbophyllum, as the type material had no flowers left. he further remarked that Phreatia globulosa was similar to two later described species of Bulbophyllum, but that according to the description it differed from these in having a hastate lip.Vermeulen concluded that an unambiguous interpretation of Phreatia globulosa was not possible.our view, however, is that such an interpretation may yet become possible at a future date, namely, in case new material is collected at or near the type locality (indonesia, Papua Province, foothills of Mt Jaya, on the western bank of the tsingarong River at c. 950 m altitude).if such material answers Ridley's description, there will be no reason not to identify it accordingly.in addition, since vegetative material of P. globulosa is preserved, sequencing or other (perhaps as yet untried) techniques could at least in theory provide conclusive evidence.While we agree that these possibilities are at present remote, we think that it is nevertheless useful to have this new combination available.deNdrobium Sw.
Dendrobium Sw. is the second largest orchid genus in Asia, with probably in excess of 900 species (Schuiteman & de Vogel, 2002).it is also an extremely diverse genus, as is testified by the fact that it has about 60 generic synonyms (Agoo et al., 2003).Various clades can be recognised, both on morphological grounds and based on dNA sequence data (Yukawa & Uehara, 1996;Yukawa et al., 2000;clements, 2003). in which rank these clades should be classified is a contentious issue.In the absence of non-arbitrary criteria for the recognition of a clade at generic rank, we opt for a solution that follows three principles: 1) Any genus should be monophyletic; 2) the rank of a clade should only be modified when this does not entail a large number of new combinations; 3) a clade currently recognised below genus level should only be raised to genus level when there are clear morphological synapomorphies for the clade.to put it succinctly, we prefer to maintain the nomenclatural status quo, unless there are compelling grounds to depart from it.We do so in recognition of the fact that the constant and seemingly never ending name-changing is one of the reasons why taxonomy is currently held in low esteem.While many name changes are undoubtedly both necessary and unavoidable, we would like to plea for much more restraint in this respect.Applied to the rather recently established genus Dockrillia Brieger our principles lead to its rejection on the following grounds: 1) in its current delimitation, as advocated by clements & Jones (1996b), Dockrillia is paraphyletic, as was shown by Yukawa et al. (2000: 468); 2) even if an expanded concept of Dockrillia, i.e. including Dendrobium lichenastrum (F.Muell.)Nicholls and its allies, would be monophyletic this does not imply that it has a sister group relationship with any other group.in other words, its recognition could make another group paraphyletic; 3) without knowing the delimitation of the clade to which Dockrillia belongs it is not possible to find morphological synapomorphies for it; 4) recognition of Dockrillia at genus level may imply the same for dozens of additional segregates of Dendrobium, resulting in a huge number of name changes (as exemplified by Clements & Jones, 2002a, b), moreover, many of these segregates will be almost impossible to distinguish using morphological characters.For these reasons we consider it premature to recognise Dockrillia and most other genera recently split off from Dendrobium.distribution -New guinea.

dendrobium caudiculatum (
Note -Although all type material of Dendrobium lonchigerum is lost, it is evident from the description that it is conspecific with the later described D. simplicicaule.this is a highly characteristic species, of which the lip is more similar to that of certain species of Diplocaulobium than to that of any other species of Flickingeria.its position in Flickingeria is not in doubt, however, as in other respects (e.g.vegetative architecture, inflorescence morphology) it clearly belongs in this genus.the number of genera included in the subtribe glomerinae has shown a steady decline since the treatment by Schlechter (1911: 223-324).the genera Ceratostylis Blume, Epiblastus Schltr., and Mediocalcar J.J. Sm. are now firmly established as belonging to the Eriinae, while Agrostophyllum Blume (including Chitonochilus Schltr., which represent a peloric species of Agrostophyllum) and Earina Lindl.may either belong in the Podochilinae or in a subtribe of their own, the Agrostophyllinae.the six remaining genera included by Schlechter are all bona fide members of the Glomerinae: Aglosso rhyncha Schltr., Glomera Blume, Glossorhyncha Ridl., Giulianettia Schltr., Ischno centrum Schltr., and Sepalosiphon Schltr. Van Royen (1974) included Giulianettia in Glossorhyncha, and suggested that Ischnocentrum and Sepalosiphon should be treated likewise.these two genera were formally transferred to Glossorhyncha by ormerod (2002).however, already in 1908, Smith united Glossorhyncha with Glomera, and gave compelling arguments for this step.these arguments have never been refuted -on the contrary, with the very considerable number of new species described since then they have only become stronger.in their present circumscription, Glomera and Glossorhyncha differ only in the number of flowers in the inflorescence: one in Glosso rhyncha, two or more in Glomera.Admittedly, this division may largely coincide with a difference in pollination syndrome: species of Glomera seem to be adapted to bird pollination, while Glossorhyncha is probably mainly pollinated by nocturnal butterflies.As a result, many species of Glomera have brightly coloured, not widely opening, scentless flowers and a generally rather robust habit, while most species of Glossorhyncha have white, greenish or brownish, widely opening, scented flowers and a more delicate habit.But there are quite a few species of Glossorhyncha that could aptly be characterised by saying that they are glomeras with a 1-flowered inflorescence, such as the tellingly named Glossorhyncha glomeroides Schltr. in view of the essential lack of characters separating Glossorhyncha from Glomera we prefer to treat all in a broader circumscribed genus Glomera. the genus Aglossorhyncha is clearly distinct, so that the subtribe now contains these two genera only.9. Glomera myrtillus (Schltr.)Schuit. & de Vogel, comb. nov. Basionym: Ischnocentrum myrtillus Schltr. (1912)  As its name implies, Octarrhena is a genus in which the flowers possess eight pollinia.these pollinia can either be of equal size, or there may be four (relatively) large and four small pollinia in the pollinarium.the genus Chitonanthera agrees in every significant character with certain species of Octarrhena (e.g.O. lorentzii J.J. Sm.), but for the fact that here we find only four equal-sized pollinia.In the past perhaps too much emphasis has been laid on the number of pollinia to distinguish genera in the orchidaceae.there are now several examples where the number of pollinia can be variable within the same genus, and Octarrhena is definitely such a case.It is therefore necessary to transfer the ten known species of Chitonanthera to Octarrhena.Study of the available material at Leiden has revealed that some names should be considered synonymous.distribution -New guinea.
distribution -New guinea.
trichotosia Blume the genus Trichotosia, like Flickingeria mentioned above, is characterised by vegetative rather than floral characters.Usually it is recognised at once by the conspicuous indumentum of red-brown or yellow hairs on the leaves and the leaf-sheaths, a rare feature in the orchidaceae.the stems are never fleshy or swollen into pseudobulbs, as in most other members of the subtribe Eriinae.Again, this is a genus currently recognised by all students of Asian orchidaceae, therefore the following new combinations are necessary.