Phalaenopsis Journal Third Quarter 22(1&2) 2012 | Page 27

descriptions were published in Gardener ’ s Chronicle and in the newspaper Hamburger Garden . The largest part of his new taxa appeared in his Xenia Orchidacea ( 1858 – 1900 ). The last three volumes of Xenia Orchidacea were published by Kränzlin . After a long illness , Heinrich Gustav Reichenbach died at the age of 65 on May 6 , 1889 . To distinguish him from his father , whose abbreviation in the botanical literature is Rchb ., the Latin term filius ( son ) is added to his name abbreviated Rchb . f . Reichenbach contributed to confusion in orchid nomenclature with provisions in his will . Reichenbach decreed that all his Orchideen herbar and his drawings should be kept in sealed boxes for 25 years to protect them from crazy investigations . All his herbarium , his extensive library , seed collection and instruments were bequeathed to the Naturhistorisches ( Natural History ) Museum in Vienna , Austria under the condition of compliance with the conditions . The Vienna Court Museum was willing to meet the conditions of Reichenbach and held the 33 large boxes and packages for safekeeping for 25 years until 1914 . Science thus lost the opportunity of his insights based on extensive review of the material . Thus , many of the already described species by Reichenbach were later republished under different names , since the type specimens and drawings were not available and the published descriptions not always very accurate . The Reichenbach-herbarium in the Naturhistorische Museum includes a barely manageable number of herbarium specimens , letters , and drawings — a veritable treasure trove for botanists , especially because of the orchids .
The bases of the description of new species are among these many herbarium type documents . Unfortunately , one cannot obtain unambiguous conclusions regarding the exact classification of individual species using the type of documents thus obtained . After the war , the entire collection was adversely affected by untrained personnel who reorganized and glued specimens to sheets . You can find many such flowers glued ; although you can see only the front of the significant parts , lips or staminodes can be observed . Other flowers have also suffered from the long periods of storage . One can barely identify the flowers , because parts are missing or the flower has completely crumbled . Even with complete flowers , a meaningful result cannot be inferred after such decomposition .
Phalaenopsis - Third Quarter , Vol . 22 ( 1 & 2 ) 2012
Nonetheless , it is surprising how well most of the dried flower material has survived more than 100 years . It is particularly regrettable , however , that individual flowers , as well as basic images , are completely missing after type specimens were loaned to botanists throughout the world . While the Naturhistorisches Museum has acted as a model in support of botanical work , some botanists have abused the privilege .
The Phalaenopsis
Of particularly significance was the work of H . G . Reichenbach in the genus Phalaenopsis . Between 1870 and 1887 , he described , both in English and German journals , a number of new species of this genus .
Species
Collector
Publication
Phal . sumatrana
1839 Korthals
1860 Korthals & Reichenbach Hamburger Gartenzeitung
Phal . lobbii
1845 T . Lobb
1870 Reichenbach Refugium Botanicum
Phal . schilleriana
1858 Porte
1860 Reichenbach Hamburger Gartenzeitung
Phal . lowii
1862 Parish
1862 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . pantherina
Low
1864 Reichenbach Botanische Zeitung
Phal . parishii
1864 Parish
1865 Reichenbach Botanische Zeitung
Phal . lueddemanniana 1865 Low
1865 Reichenbach Botanische Zeitung
Phal . tetraspis
1868 T . Lobb
1868 Reichenbach Xenia Orchidacea
Phal . mannii
1868 Mann
1871 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . fuscata
Bull
1874 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . pulchra
1875 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . stobartiana
1877 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . corningiana
1879 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . stuartiana
1880 Boxall
1881 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . maculata
1880 Curtis
1881 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . speciosa
1881 Low
1881 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
Phal . sanderiana 1881 Roebelen 1882 Reichenbach Flora Phal . reichenbachiana
1881 Reichenbach & Sander Gardener ’ s Chronicle Phal . fasciata 1882 Low 1882 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle Phal . hieroglyphica 1887 Boxall 1887 Reichenbach Gardener ’ s Chronicle
All known species of Phalaenopsis were published by Reichenbach in the “ Hamburger Garden and Flower paper ” ( 1860 ) and dealt with each in detail . Two years later , an extended treatment appeared in Xenia Orchidacea . This comprised a total of eleven species , which were divided into two groups . The essential characteristic of the assignment to the groups was the presence or absence of an appendage on the top lip . An accurate assessment of an already described species can only be made on the basis of the first description and the type of evidence . The type may have been collected both as dried flower or plant . There may also be helpful drawings , sketches or watercolors of this plant type specimen . Reichenbach understood that very meaningful drawings with little strokes and
27