# Latest Taxonomic Changes



## Drorchid (May 24, 2013)

Thought you guys would find this interesting (I got the letter from Julian Shaw, Orchid Registrar at the RHS at Kew Gardens). The most interesting changes are that the species Neofinetia falcata is now considered Vanda falcata, The genus Ascocentrum is now also considered Vanda, Sedirea Japonica, is now considerered Phalaenopsis japonica, and that Doritis and Kingidium are now considered Phalaenopsis, so no more Doritaenopsis hybrids.... The only good change in my opinion is the last one!


*Orchid Hybrid Registration Advisory Group News Release May 2013*

At a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Orchid Hybrid Registration Group (OHRAG) in London on 22nd May, the proposed nomenclatural changes in the Vandeae were discussed. The Group were privileged to receive seminar presentations by André Schuiteman and Lauren Gardiner, both from the Kew Herbarium, on their research into the taxonomy of the Vandeae. A full account is due to be published in volume 6 of Genera Orchidacearum which is scheduled for publication in February 2014, and is the final volume of the series. 
Following discussion, the members of the Advisory Group unanimously recommended adoption of the following changes in the Hybrid Register immediately.

Vanda is to be expanded to include: Ascocentropsis, Ascocentrum, Christensonia, Eparmatostigma, Euanthe, Neofinetia and Trudelia. 
Aerides flabellata has been transferred to Vanda.
Papilionanthe is to be accepted as distinct from Vanda.

Arachnis to include: Armodorum and Esmeralda

Gastrochilus to include: Haraella

Holcoglossum to include: Ascolabium and Penkimia.

Phalaenopsis to include: Doritis, Kingidium, Lesliea, Nothodoritis, Ornithochilus and Sedirea.

Renanthera to include: Ascoglossum, Porphyrodesme, and Renantherella

Robiquetia to include: Abdominea, Malleola, India, Megalotus and Samarorchis.

Trichoglottis to include: Ceratochilus, Staurochilus and Ventricularia. 

In the past it has been the custom to await publication of the relevant volume of Genera Orchidacearum and wait for six months to allow discussion, before implementing any nomenclatural changes. On this occasion however, it seemed appropriate for implementation to proceed due to the uncontroversial nature of the changes, and in order to have all the changes in place before data is extracted from the register to prepare the forthcoming Sanders List Addendum. It is hoped this will prevent unnecessary delay in publication of the Addendum. In addition, Doritis and x Doritaenopsis have already been moved into Phalaenopsis. 

Some of the new names and combinations required have already been published in this and the previous issue of the Orchid Review Supplement, and in Phytotaxa 71: 42–47 (13 Nov. 2012) and Phytotaxa 61: 47–54 (6 Aug. 2012).


----------



## Ozpaph (May 24, 2013)

I give up!


----------



## limuhead (May 24, 2013)

None of them are valid in my opinion, and never will be. Bunch of snot nosed kids that just got a degree that are trying to make a name for themselves. The biggest use of taxonomy is field ID, gene studies and chromosome counts are worthless for use in the field...


----------



## Secundino (May 24, 2013)

Sorry,
but I will keep the old names. Due to the 'uncontroversial nature of my eye'!


----------



## Trithor (May 24, 2013)

I even get confused at gratixianum, also at virens/javanicum on Wednesday, hookerae and its friends on Thursdays, villosum and boxalli on Fridays, wilhelminae on Saturdays, and all the rest the rest of the week, so I am not even going to try this new series of changes!


----------



## slippertalker (May 24, 2013)

Lumpers rule!

at least until the splitters take another stab at it.....


----------



## nikv (May 24, 2013)

I think their cheese has slipped off their cracker.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 24, 2013)

Uncontroversial??? Neofinetia = Vanda?????????


----------



## Heather (May 24, 2013)

A least there's no Paphs or Phrags. this time. Weird on the Neo tho... and Sederia? what would the Japanese say about these! Crazy...


----------



## Jayfar (May 24, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> Uncontroversial??? Neofinetia = Vanda?????????



Neofinetia used to be Vanda, back before any of us were born (1854). 

Actually most of these changes were announced months ago; the Vanda relumping goes back to last October and has been previously discussed and down-shouted ad nauseum on various orchid boards. Sedirea to Phal is the only one I wasn't aware of till now.

EDIT:

And this board was no exception; here's the Neo to Vanda thread from last October:

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27355

and a Phytotaxa paper with the specifics:

New combinations in the genus Vanda (Orchidaceae)



> Vanda falcata (Thunb.) Beer (1854: 317).
> Basionym: Orchis falcata Thunberg (1784: 811).
> Homotypic synonyms:
> Limodorum falcatum (Thunb.) Thunberg (1794: 326).
> ...


----------



## SlipperFan (May 25, 2013)

Jayfar said:


> Neofinetia used to be Vanda, back before any of us were born (1854).
> 
> Actually most of these changes were announced months ago; the Vanda relumping goes back to last October and has been previously discussed and down-shouted ad nauseum on various orchid boards. Sedirea to Phal is the only one I wasn't aware of till now.
> 
> ...



I remember it well. I just take issue with the assessment that the changes are "uncontroversial."


----------



## Jayfar (May 25, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> I remember it well. I just take issue with the assessment that the changes are "uncontroversial."


Regardless, they'll still be Neos, Furan and Fukiran (or Fuuran and Fuukiran) among serious aficionados.


----------



## lepetitmartien (May 26, 2013)

On my side I admire taxonomists who endure each other's arguments based on observation and genetics, not for fun but science, AND that are snobbed by amateurs who don't like to change their labels while disregarding all their work.

It's their job and it's not for fun. 

I'm way more interested on knowing why the RHS unlabeled Phalaenopsis Sweet Memory from it's synonym Liodora to Lydia Tobia out of the blue… And I don't cry over the disappearance of Doritis or Neofinetia. In fact I don't give a damn, save it's the scientific consensus and I'm not in a position to contest it on the required ground (and most amateurs are not able to do so), which is not based on feelings but evidence and studies.

When I had my first orchid attack some 30 years ago, there was already big taxonomic debates, that are somehow coming to a conclusion now. I wouldn't think the guys change things for pleasure, they do so because they agree the ancient divisions is neither coherent nor backed by strong evidence so they should be divided into different genera.

(Deep in me I believe for the joke than in fact there may be only 3 or 4 genera in orchidaceae, all the others should be forgotten, or that all are epidendrums like in the 18th century and ya basta! )

Btw, they are moving things in the vanilla genera, and I like it very much <3


----------



## emydura (May 26, 2013)

lepetitmartien said:


> On my side I admire taxonomists who endure each other's arguments based on observation and genetics, not for fun but science, AND that are snobbed by amateurs who don't like to change their labels while disregarding all their work.
> 
> It's their job and it's not for fun.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said. Amateur orchid growers will disagree with any change to what they know, so no matter how solid the scientific evidence is behind their taxonomic change, taxonomists will be unfairly criticised. An example would be the criticism of the splitting of the Dendrobium genera. When you see the huge differences in flower morphology and understand the reasons behind the split, the change is just common sense. But not to amateur orchid growers.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (May 26, 2013)

*Don't Touch My Taxon!*



nikv said:


> I think their cheese has slipped off their cracker.



Yeah, and the cheese is the best part too.



SlipperFan said:


> Uncontroversial??? Neofinetia = Vanda?????????



Well, at least they didn't move Paphs in there too... yet.



Heather said:


> ...and Sederia? what would the Japanese say about these! Crazy...



Actually, they won't care, they'll use their own names, which is what they've done all along anyway. Nagoran, Fuuran, Sekkoku, Atsumorisou...



lepetitmartien said:


> On my side I admire taxonomists who endure each other's arguments based on observation and genetics, not for fun but science, AND that are snobbed by amateurs who don't like to change their labels while disregarding all their work.



In the infamous words of Monty Python, "we need more taxonomists!"


----------



## gonewild (May 26, 2013)

lepetitmartien said:


> It's their job and it's not for fun.



:rollhappy:
Someone went into Taxonomy because they don't have fun with it?
:rollhappy:


----------



## JeanLux (May 27, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> I give up!



Same here !!  Jean


----------



## Roy (May 27, 2013)

Jean, you sum it up perfectly.

Why don't we officially drop names & call them NOID's. It would be a lot easier to remember.!!!!!!!


----------



## SlipperFan (May 27, 2013)

emydura said:


> I agree with everything you said. Amateur orchid growers will disagree with any change to what they know, so no matter how solid the scientific evidence is behind their taxonomic change, taxonomists will be unfairly criticised. An example would be the criticism of the splitting of the Dendrobium genera. When you see the huge differences in flower morphology and understand the reasons behind the split, the change is just common sense. But not to amateur orchid growers.



I'm an amateur grower. What I disagree with is the constant changing -- moving things into different genera and them moving them again. It seems that, just as you get used to certain names, they are changed again. If this is the last change that is made, I'll be very happy.

By the way, I know many professional growers, and I hear them complaining about the changes. It impacts them more than it does us amateurs. They have greenhouses full of plants they have to look up name changes. Changing tags take a lot of time and money -- something most commercial growers don't have these days. 

I'm rather unhappy about the insinuations about "amateur growers."


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (May 27, 2013)

Certainly name changing confuses things for nurseries and leads inevitably to a crazy labeling crisis. Funny too is how folks don't want to change the name they call a plant. One that sticks out is Neofinetia falcata - how can it be just another Vanda!?


----------



## emydura (May 27, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> I'm an amateur grower. What I disagree with is the constant changing -- moving things into different genera and them moving them again. It seems that, just as you get used to certain names, they are changed again. If this is the last change that is made, I'll be very happy.
> 
> By the way, I know many professional growers, and I hear them complaining about the changes. It impacts them more than it does us amateurs. They have greenhouses full of plants they have to look up name changes. Changing tags take a lot of time and money -- something most commercial growers don't have these days.
> 
> I'm rather unhappy about the insinuations about "amateur growers."



Dot -I shouldn't have used the term "amateur growers". Non-Scientists was what I was inferring.

I don’t think there is any way of getting round the name changes. The names are meant to not only identify a plant but to also describe its relationship with other species/genera. As more information comes in and our understanding of the relationship between species grow, names will have to change to reflect this. If we were stuck with keeping the names that were first used we would still be calling Paphiopedilums by their initial classification of Cypripediums.

In the end taxonomists are basing their decision on science. I don’t think they should be making decisions based around the impact on orchid growers. If we aren’t happy with changing names then maybe us growers should start using common names instead. They don’t need to be changed. I don’t know the latin name of a giraffe, and that could change a 100 times, but a giraffe will always be a giraffe. Plants seem to be the only group where latin names are mostly used, I guess due to the sheer number of species involved. I prefer latin names myself but then I appreciate they are not cast in stone. 

I’m not saying that I agree with the new changes described above. I don’t know enough about those groups to comment except the Phalaenopsis change which seems a good one. And if people want to argue the name changes based around science then that is great and legitimate. But I don’t agree that names should never change because it impacts on my hobby. Nor do I think it is fair to question the integrity of scientists by stating name changes are nothing but an attempt to promote their career. Their work has to be peer reviewed and their reputations are at stake. So they have to have a good solid foundation behind their decisions. The reputation of the science profession has never been as poor as it currently is due the divisive climate change debate. It would be nice if we didn’t add to it. 

At the end of day, the names are being changed for a scientific purpose. There is no compulsion for us growers to change our labels. We will still know the plant you are talking about whichever name you use. In fact from a growers perspective it may be more informative to retain the old name.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (May 27, 2013)

I really don't see the big deal. I can understand the annoyance of professional growers, especially those concerned with awards, but most of us here are horticulturists, not botanists or taxonomists. I have no problem intellectually with Neofinetia and Ascocentrum going into Vanda. I'll still keep the Neo name on my labels, because it simply clarifies just what type of of Vanda I have. If I ever grow them, I'll be happy to have the Ascocentrum name on a label for those little colorful Vandas, but I'm perfectly happy to throw out the "Ascda" label and just call those hybrids Vandas....if I ever grow them again. They are so easy and do so well for me, but take up so much space........


----------



## goods (May 28, 2013)

emydura said:


> I agree with everything you said. Amateur orchid growers will disagree with any change to what they know, so no matter how solid the scientific evidence is behind their taxonomic change, taxonomists will be unfairly criticised. An example would be the criticism of the splitting of the Dendrobium genera. When you see the huge differences in flower morphology and understand the reasons behind the split, the change is just common sense. But not to amateur orchid growers.



Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda. 

Dendrobiums may be split because of different flower morphologies, but Neo. falcata is lumped based on similar vegetative characteristics (That was the last argument I heard...no idea if that's still correct.). Find me another "true Vanda that has a nectary like that, is night fragrant, white and moth pollinated, and I'll accept the lumping into Vanda. Throwing out decades of morphological evidence based solely on genetics isn't the way to go, in my opinion.


----------



## emydura (May 28, 2013)

goods said:


> Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda.
> n.



Absolutely, the main purpose of the latin nomenclature is to describe the evolutionary relationships between species which is why we keep seeing name changes over time. When our understanding of the relationships change so do the names. I don't know enough about the Vanda group so I don't have an opinion on this current change. No matter what method you use there is still a degree of subjectiveness regarding at what point do you split at, which is what causes the controversy. It all comes down to whether you are a splitter or clumper. I'm normally a cllumper but I thought the splitting of the Dendrobium genus made sense when it was explained to me.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 28, 2013)

emydura said:


> At the end of day, the names are being changed for a scientific purpose. There is no compulsion for us growers to change our labels. We will still know the plant you are talking about whichever name you use. In fact from a growers perspective it may be more informative to retain the old name.



Unfortunately that's not true. If you exhibit at orchid society meetings or shows there seems to be a requirement to ensure the 'genus' is correct and up-to-date - see all the printed 'corrections' in newsletters now-a-days. 
Heaven help anyone wishing to get a 'Cattleya' awarded. It HAS to be botanically correct and that's nearly impossible for an 'amateur'.


----------



## emydura (May 28, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> Unfortunately that's not true. If you exhibit at orchid society meetings or shows there seems to be a requirement to ensure the 'genus' is correct and up-to-date - see all the printed 'corrections' in newsletters now-a-days.
> Heaven help anyone wishing to get a 'Cattleya' awarded. It HAS to be botanically correct and that's nearly impossible for an 'amateur'.



When you enter a Dendrobium speciosum at our show it would have to be registered as a Thelychiton, but at the same time if it was to be considered for an award it would have to be judged under Dendrobium as that is how the NSW and AOC bodies still recognise it. So there must be some flexibility with the judging. Surely some common sense would prevail and officials would ensure that the orchids are judged under the appropriate name.


----------



## li'l frog (May 28, 2013)

We're running into trouble distinguishing the need to register flowers to judge at shows, and the need to determine the relationship between orchid groups. For show judging, it would be insane to judge a Neo against a full-sized Vanda. I know that AOS is trying to conform to all the changes in nomenclature, but sometimes it's just not logical for judging, or for keeping pedigree records. Look at the mess Cattleya is in -- how is a Sophronitis flower to be compared to a huge BLC? I know some of the society groups (MAOC . .) are struggling with figuring out how to ribbon judge.


----------



## PaphMadMan (May 28, 2013)

goods said:


> Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda.
> 
> Dendrobiums may be split because of different flower morphologies, but Neo. falcata is lumped based on similar vegetative characteristics (That was the last argument I heard...no idea if that's still correct.). Find me another "true Vanda that has a nectary like that, is night fragrant, white and moth pollinated, and I'll accept the lumping into Vanda. Throwing out decades of morphological evidence based solely on genetics isn't the way to go, in my opinion.



Morphology can be misleading. Species adapted to similar pollinators can have visually similar flowers, but not necessarily be especially closely related evolutionarily, just for one example. A long spur is definitely an adaptation to a specific pollinator, but it might not match up with significant genetic differences. If you choose the wrong morphological characteristics you create artificial groupings, and the right characteristics aren't always the obvious plant and flower forms that the general public might notice.

A large genus can almost always be split, but if the genetic evidence for evolutionary relationships doesn't give you the same groupings that the traditional morphological characteristics give it might be better science to go with the large diverse genus. Neofinetia is physically distinctive but might not be genetically distinguishable. Without looking at the data I'm only guessing, but it could be that we would find even more objections if Vanda was divided genetically than by lumping all those species together.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 28, 2013)

David, I'm not a scientist either, though I support science and scientists. They are discovering the secrets of the real world/universe, away from superstition and myth.

I'd like to put all the taxonomists in a room together, lock the door and tell them they cannot leave until they've all agreed, once and for all, on genera and species names. Then we can all change our tags, register our plants for shows, and be happy to know that we have the name controversy over with.


----------



## Secundino (May 29, 2013)

Well, I _am_ a scientist and amateur orchid grower as well. I have no problems in changing names and labels, I do remember synonyms and understand perfectly the grouping of related plants. Splitting of supergenera as _Dendrobium_, _Bulbophyllum_, _Epidendrum_, etc. makes sense and I don't even argue if it must be into new genera or just subgroups in one big. 
But lumping together what can be and has been easily distinguished by eye-sight or morphologic studies in the past and in the present makes no sense whatever new methods of identification may appear. I just means the genetically they are really close - and not more. Phaenotype = genotype + environment. Mark this: in the future more subtile genetic understan ding will support the splitting of again in the same 'scientific' way as it did with the lumping.
No need to offend and oppose amateurs versus professionals, scientist vs non-scientist, taxonomists vs 'users'. 
Everyone who has knowledge can get to valid conclusions.
Me, I see clear differences between Phal. amabilis, Phal. lindenii and Phal. japonica. You may use the generic names that you want.
Until you get to a show. (Hope you don't show hybrids!)


----------



## em_tee_w (May 29, 2013)

I don't really care, but I do feel sorry for the people who have to update all of their records and labels with these changes. However, I liked the name Doritis, it makes me think of Doritos...


----------



## Ozpaph (May 29, 2013)

em_tee_w said:


> However, I liked the name Doritis, it makes me think of Doritos...



:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## emydura (May 29, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> I'd like to put all the taxonomists in a room together, lock the door and tell them they cannot leave until they've all agreed, once and for all, on genera and species names. Then we can all change our tags, register our plants for shows, and be happy to know that we have the name controversy over with.



It might take a little while yet Dot. With new species still being discovered and the invent of genetic analysis, things are in a state of flux. But I'm sure there will come a time when there will be a general consensus and the classification of orchids will be settled. We probably won't be alive to see it though.


----------



## PaphMadMan (May 29, 2013)

Even if it was possible for every expert to agree on every known genus and species designation today, science is always subject to new data and new interpretations, and all living populations are still evolving. There will always be changes. 

Lets 'just pretend' that we already know everything that is and that ever can be? Is that really what anyone wants?


----------



## SlipperFan (May 29, 2013)

PaphMadMan said:


> ...
> 
> Lets 'just pretend' that we already know everything that is and that ever can be? Is that really what anyone wants?



Only religion! :rollhappy:


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 1, 2013)

Reminds me I've got a label to change…  (sedirea)


----------



## Roy (Jun 2, 2013)

Get them all into a room to agree. It would be like a committee to design a horse, they'd come up with a camel.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 5, 2013)

Roy said:


> Get them all into a room to agree. It would be like a committee to design a horse, they'd come up with a camel.



more like a kangaroo!:rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## s1214215 (Jun 10, 2013)

I probably wouldn't mind so much if some of these changes made sense. The argument put forward of plants not needing to resemble each other to be in the same genus is a little off for me. And to say that plants that cant or can barely breed with each other are in the same genus again doesn't sit well. An example: Sedirea doesn't look like a phal to me and only breeds with phals with considerable difficulty. 

I have spoken to two plant molecular scientists I know and they have said that there is disagreement amongst them and their thinking is that these name changes wont hold, and will get changed again as the field of study is refined. 

It has been said there is pettiness when it comes to this renaming with certain identities seeking accolade and attention. The renaming of the Australian Dendrobiums is a case, where it has been said it that was set to go ahead until certain people got their noses out of joint because they were not getting any of the credit. 

I spent 7 years studying and working with academics. I learnt fast that getting papers published, and their names on them was paramount. That an academic tagging his/her name to someone else's work happens, and the petty rivalry abound. And that researchers can often provide the answers that their employers want to hear (happens in government a lot LOL). I rather like this cartoon below for its relativity to the argument.


----------



## s1214215 (Jun 10, 2013)




----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 10, 2013)

:rollhappy:


----------



## Stone (Jun 12, 2013)

I have to prepare a talk on Cattleyas for our club. I had no idea what I was getting into!!!!!!!!! I have books that rushed to credit new name changes and so Laelia purpurata is under Sophronitis. Now of course they are all Cattleyas. Will they stay there? NO obviously not. I don't give a #$%@ about genetics, You cannot tell me that Laelia liliputana and Cattleya dormaniana and Cattleya trianiae should all be in the same genus! If so then chimps and humans should be in the same Genus. I think I will continue to recognise the names from last century until they sort it all out. 
Or maybe we could use a more simple system like: The big purple one or the medium sized pink one with the yellow lip and the red spots........


----------



## Roy (Jun 12, 2013)

Stone, you forgot to add C. (S) coccinea etc into the batch.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 12, 2013)

Stone said:


> Or maybe we could use a more simple system like: The big purple one or the medium sized pink one with the yellow lip and the red spots........



They would just redifine what the color purple is.
And then argue about how big 6 inches is.


----------



## Pete (Jun 18, 2013)

i quit reading about 1/2 way down the 3rd page... but just wanted to give my .02
taxonomists are hard working and *do their jobs* based on hard science and genetics. it is a thankless, long, laborious, difficult job. 
I too am not the biggest fan of large scale changes, for example, Laelia purpurata will ALWAYS be a Laelia in my book. but for the most these genera changes are good and generally fit. Im a pretty big lumper when it comes to species classifications, however the family is so large its hard to even make a blanket statement on that taxonomic level. i guess its just most difficult for people to accept when they are plants they have a vested interest in that is being changed. And people who have made intergeneric crosses that are then potentially being renamed without them being able to say "boo" about it. thats just wrong.


----------



## Pete (Jun 18, 2013)

Stone said:


> I have to prepare a talk on Cattleyas for our club. I had no idea what I was getting into!!!!!!!!! I have books that rushed to credit new name changes and so Laelia purpurata is under Sophronitis. Now of course they are all Cattleyas. Will they stay there? NO obviously not. I don't give a #$%@ about genetics, You cannot tell me that Laelia liliputana and Cattleya dormaniana and Cattleya trianiae should all be in the same genus! If so then chimps and humans should be in the same Genus. I think I will continue to recognise the names from last century until they sort it all out.
> Or maybe we could use a more simple system like: The big purple one or the medium sized pink one with the yellow lip and the red spots........



mike i TOTALLY get what your saying. especially given the difference between a liliputina and a trianae, just look at the falcata vs. something like a sanderiana. however size and form are nothing for taxonomy. literally, NOTHING. reproductive mechanisms/organs and genetics are taxonomy. and for what its worth, even tho we aint the same genus, us homosapiens and chimpanzees are in the same family, and subfamily!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm OK with that. But I don't see that as a reason to call a Sophronitis a Cattleya or a Neofinitia a Vanda.


----------

