|Carlos Eduardo just saw only one flower in herbarium, so he has not yet a conclusive opinion about this.|
|It has been described as a hybrid of O. forbesii and O. zappii, however there is no O. forbesii in the known habitats of O. zappii.|
In Espírito Santo, in the same habitat of O. zappii
of Oncidium ,
are found such as
O. gardneri var.
|O. X colnagoi, O. welteri, O. divaricatum but never O. forbesii.|
In the habitat of O. zappii
found in the State of Rio,
Carlos Eduardo could verified
the occurrence of O. forbesii
he has never found
neither O. gardneri
|X litum Rchb. f.|
considered as a hybrid of
O. forbesii and O. crispum
but Carlos Eduardo concluded
that probably the combination
is not that.
It could be O. forbesii X O. gardneri
|X punctatum Hort|
||In Flora Brasiliensis, it
appeared as a hybrid
of O. forbesii and
|Carlos Eduardo knows a big population. They are very variable. It was very difficult to segregate which is O.X litum and which is O. X punctatum, they are very similar, although the crossings are different, always O. forbesii, but the other species is different.|
f. described O. X praestans
as species and told about the possibility of
being a hybrid formed by O. daystyle and
Reichenbach d. described X polletianum as
espécie and told about the possibility of being
a hybrid formed by O. dasytyle e O. forbesii
many bibliographic references corroborate with Reichenbach, since "Flora
Brasilienzis", they are considered as a variety of O. gardneri
however to Carlos Eduardo one has nothing with the other.
He examined both material-type as well as alive material and concluded that there are two valid and distinct species.
X praestans Rchb. f. would be O. dasytyle X O. forbesii) and
X polletianum Rchb. f. would be O. dasytyle X O.curtum).
Both very beautiful and occur in the State of Rio
considered two valid species, what is, generally, called O. amictum
is, in reality, O. nitidum Barbosa Rodrigues.
Lindley described the species O. cornigerum, like the most part of
the botanist of that age, he used to give a common name, this was Oncidium
bull's head, due to those two projected small corns.
From the examination of the material of Lindley's herbarium of O. cornigerum as well O. fimbriatum, Carlos Eduardo could see that the lateral lobes of the lip are projected forward as there were two corns.
The drawing presented in Orchidaceae Brasilienses as Oncidium fimbriatum, in fact, corresponds to O. cornigerum described by Lindley.
So, it is possible that O. fimbriatum can be a synonym of O. cornigerum which has been the first one to be described.
O. fimbriatum has been described from just one flower and possibly when Lindley got it, it should be already old.
Concerning O. cruciatum, he went two times to Vienna herbarium and in both, the exsiccatae was lend to Spain, since l975. He does not know if it has returned to the herbarium after the works because they were repairing the herbarium. He believes that when they conclude the works, they will try to recuperate because it is a treasure.
So, he did not see the type but he could see very well the description and based on this, he has the impression that the drawing presented by Pabst & Dungs as O. cornigerum corresponds to O. cruciatum and the drawing presented as O. cruciatum is nothing more than a drawing of O. pubes.
This is the reason why he says that this is a very complicate section and he can not affirm anything before doing a very deep study about.
|To Carlos Eduardo, it is practically impossible to say what is O. gilvum because there is no material of herbarium and the only drawing presented in Flora Fluminense, by Father Veloso, does not allow any conclusion.|
|He just saw a material from herbarium but the habitat is still unknown.|
|He never succeeded in finding it.|
|This species is confirmed to Minas Gerais and Pernambuco but it does not mean it does not occur in another place.|
plant of O. blanchetii, 1393, is found in all herbarium in
Europe with the same number.
Carlos Eduardo believes that all plants are the same which has been distributed to many researchers.
This one in Vienna herbarium is th type described by Reichenbach and the other are holotypes.
If they were collected in different times, the type would have, for example, the number 1393, this one in Kew would be 1394 or 1395, and so on, all of them were placed by Blanchet