Talk:Epidendrum flexuosum

Common Names

Nearly every reference to E. flexuosum that I have found calls it E. imatophyllum. However, the Kew monocot checklist page does not admit to the existence of such a taxon; it lists only E. imantophyllum (with the same reference to Lindley as the other sources for E. imatophyllum) as a synonym for E. flexuosum. (Even the Espanol page for E. fluxuosum is titled E. imatophyllum and lists the same other synonyms as Kew, as well as calling E. flexuosum a synonym.) E. imatophyllum therefore qualifies as a common name for E. flexuosum. (Admittedly, the designation of what seems to be a Linnean binomial as a common name seems odd. However, there is no other name commonly used in the English speaking countries where this orchid grows wild: English is not the common language in the countries where this orchid grows wild! The "apparent binomial" is, however, almost universally used by English speaking persons when describing this taxon, thus making it the common name.)

Jay L09 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing why Kew would list E. imatophyllum that way, I'd have to say E. flexuosum is the valid species. E. flexuosum was published earlier than E. imatophyllum and without good reason (like improper publication of the taxon or conservation of E. imatophyllum over E. flexuosum), E. flexuosum could not be considered a proper synonym of E. imatophyllum. The GRIN database has it the right way around... --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the problem. Kew does not list "E. imatophyllum," but rather "E. imantophyllum:"  I checked again today. Of course, the matter of which binomial has priority has nothing to do with whether a synonym qualifies as a common name. — Jay L09 (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Subgenus, Section, Subsection, etc.

Can anyone (Please) find some reliable reference for the Subgenus, Section, and Subsection of this taxon?