Taxonomic work has been historically regarded as a two-fold discipline. The first, which is basically aimed at answering the question about the diversity in whatever group under study, includes most of the "biological" questions of the research. Understanding of genetic and morphological variation, structure of populations and life cycles, biogeography and phylogeography, ecological modeling, pollination and other biological components is required to define the relationships among the taxa of the group and eventually to describe their diversity. The second part of the work consists in applying a correct name to all of the organisms as they result from the biological work. This second step is usually interpreted as the documentary component of the research, and in fact it mostly deals with the document sources and the rules of biological nomenclature (such as protologues, types and other historical materials associated with the type collections, etc.). However, the use of nomenclatural sources with little or no consideration for the biological aspects of the concerned organisms can be misleading, and the same concept of "type" can be hardly understood if not framed in a rich biological context. Type specimens are just random, individual samples that must be interpreted in the context of the geographical and biological integrity of any given species, and this requires at least some direct knowledge of the organisms and their biology. When the geographical origin of type specimens lies outside the political boundaries of a given study area, taxonomic research is seriously hampered by the impossibility to visualize and understand them in a biological framework. A specific case from the research intended to complete the treatment of the Orchidaceae for the flora of Costa Rica will exemplify how a cooperative approach based on a shared methodology may be the only way to resolve the taxonomy of complex species. ; El trabajo taxonómico ha sido históricamente considerado como una disciplina doble. Por un lado, su ...
The genesis and early establishment of the Epidendra project are reviewed, retracing the scientific, ethical and political reasons that defined its actual shape and contents. The taxonomic structure of the global orchid network, its systematic framework and nomenclatural implications are discussed. The actual figures of the database are presented, and the lines of its future development are pointed out. ; Se revisan la génesis y las etapas iniciales del desarrollo del proyecto Epidendra, recapitulando las razones científicas, éticas y políticas que contribuyeron a definir su forma y contenidos actuales. Se discuten la estructura taxonómica de la red global de orquídeas, su marco sistemático e implicaciones nomenclatoriales. Se presentan los hechos y números actuales de la base de datos y se esbozan las líneas de su desarrollo futuro.
Inspired by King Carlos III in the second half of 18th Century, the Spanish government demonstrated a serious interest in the study of the rich floras of the colonies of the New World. The Royal expedition to Peru and Chile, led by Ruiz and Pavón, continued for 11 years in the two colonies and was followed by the activities of Tafalla and Manzanilla, who botanized in Peru and Ecuador. Two preliminary accounts of the flora of Peru were published in 1794 and 1798, but only three of the planned eleven volumes and five supplements of the Flora Peruviana et Chilensis were eventually published. The seventh volume, devoted to the Orchids, never saw the light of day. Due to the short descriptions published in 1798, and the dispersal of large parts of Ruiz and Pavón's herbarium, the concepts of several of their orchid species remained obscure to modern botanists. These species can now be identified for the first time through the critical study of the unpublished illustrations and manuscripts of the expedition, kept at the Royal Botanical Garden of Madrid (RJB). The results in orchidology of the expedition, with a discussion of the new findings and interpretations, made possible by the study of Ruiz and Pavón's orchid iconography, are presented in two contributions. In this first part – an introduction – notes on the illustrators and their work, as well as on the orchid manuscripts and collections, are given. Orchid taxa are presented alphabetically, from Acianthera to Maxillariella. For each taxon references to the nomenclatural types, synonymy, illustrations and exsiccata prepared during the expedition, as well as to Ruiz's diaries and the unpublished manuscripts of the expedition's botanists, are provided. In the absence of any actual specimens referable to the type collections and associated with the protologues, Bletia repanda, Epidendrum cordatum, E. viride, Fernandezia laxa, Maxillaria longipetala, M. ramosa, and M. Triphylla are formally lectotypified with the type illustrations conserved in MA. New combinations are proposed for the basionyms Bletia parviflora, Fernandezia punctata, Humboldtia po lystachya, Maxillaria ramosa, and M. Triphylla. ; Bajo el impulso del rey Carlos III, el gobierno español demostró en la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII un serio interés en el estudio de las ricas floras de sus colonias en el Nuevo Mundo. La Real Expedición al Perú y Chile, liderada por Ruiz y Pavón, trabajó por 11 años en las dos colonias y fue continuada posteriormente por Tafalla y Manzanilla, quienes botanizaron en el Perú y en el Ecuador. En 1794 y 1798 se publicaron dos trabajos preliminares sobre la flora del Perú, pero solamente tres de los 11 volúmenes y cinco suplementos de la Flora Peruviana et Chilensis vieron finalmente la luz. El séptimo volumen, dedicado a las Orquídeas, nunca se publicó. Debido a las descripciones sintéticas publicadas en 1798 y a la dispersión de una parte cuantiosa del herbario de Ruiz y Pavón, muchos conceptos de sus especies de orquídeas quedaron obscuros para los botánicos modernos. El estudio crítico de las ilustraciones y manuscritos inéditos de la expedición, conservados en el Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid (RJB), permiten ahora identificar por primera vez muchas de estas especies. Los resultados orquideológicos de la expedición, con una discusión de los nuevos hallazgos e interpretaciones hechos posibles por el estudio de la iconografía de orquídeas de Ruiz y Pavón, se presentan en dos contribuciones. En esta primera parte se proporcionan una introducción, notas sobres los ilustradores y su obra, así como sobre los manuscritos y colecciones de orquídeas. Los táxones de orquídeas se presentan alfabéticamente, de Acianthera a Maxillariella. Para cada uno de los táxones se proveen referencias a los tipos nomenclaturales, sinonimia, ilustraciones y exsiccata preparados durante la expedición, así como a los diarios de Ruiz y a los manuscritos inéditos de los botánicos de la expedición. En ausencia de especímenes de material original o de alguna manera asociable a los protólogos, se lectotipifican Bletia repanda, Epidendrum cordatum, E. viride, Fernandezia laxa, Maxillaria longipetala, M. ramosa y M. Triphylla con las ilustraciones de los tipos conservadas en MA. Se proponen nuevas combinaciones para los basiónimos Bletia parviflora, Fernandezia punctata, Humboldtia polysta chya, Maxillaria ramosa y M. Triphylla.
Summary. Benzingia reichenbachiana (Schltr.) Dressler, a pendent epiphyte ranging from Costa Rica to northern Colombia, is described and illustrated. Notes on its phylogenetic affinities, ecology, pollination, and cultural requirements are provided.
The Mesoamerican region is one of the richest in orchid diversity in the world. About 2670 species, 10% of all orchids known have been recorded there. Within this region, most of the species are concentrated in the southernmost countries. Costa Rica with 1598 species (or 0.030 spp/km2) and Panama with 1397 species (0.018 spp/km2) stand at the top of endemic species list of all Mesoamerica, with 35.37% and 28.52%, respectively. These figures, however, are misleading, as political boundaries do not have any relationship to orchid diversity. If we ignore the political frontier, there is a common biogeographic area. However, if we put the border back, the numbers in terms of scientific production and research change dramatically. Costa Rica has increased the knowledge of its orchid flora through the establishment of a successful research system, whereas Panama has lacked a similar process. To address this problem, the Lankester Botanical Garden at the Universidad de Costa Rica and the Universidad Autónoma de Chiriquí, Panama, established a new research center focused on the study of orchids. The aim of the cooperation is to provide the methodology, information, and expertise for a longterm project on taxonomy and systematics of the orchids of Panam. ; The Mesoamerican region is one of the richest in orchid diversity in the world. About 2670 species, 10% of all orchids known have been recorded there. Within this region, most of the species are concentrated in the southernmost countries. Costa Rica with 1598 species (or 0.030 spp/km2) and Panama with 1397 species (0.018 spp/km2) stand at the top of endemic species list of all Mesoamerica, with 35.37% and 28.52%, respectively. These figures, however, are misleading, as political boundaries do not have any relationship to orchid diversity. If we ignore the political frontier, there is a common biogeographic area. However, if we put the border back, the numbers in terms of scientific production and research change dramatically. Costa Rica has increased the knowledge of ...
