# Encyclia cochleata, alba



## SlipperFan (Aug 9, 2014)

I know it's not an Encyclia anymore. It is a Prosthechea.


----------



## Ozpaph (Aug 9, 2014)

I still think of it as an epidendrum....................


----------



## eaborne (Aug 9, 2014)

Neat to see! Thanks for posting!


----------



## bullsie (Aug 10, 2014)

Ozpaph said:


> I still think of it as an epidendrum....................



That's how I got my first one! But if memory serves me it has been known by a number of names. Not sure the 'last' one will be the 'last' one.oke:


----------



## NYEric (Aug 10, 2014)

Nice. I'm going to pick one up soon.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Aug 10, 2014)

bullsie said:


> That's how I got my first one! But if memory serves me it has been known by a number of names. Not sure the 'last' one will be the 'last' one.oke:



Epidendrum, Anacheilium, Encyclia and Prosthechea are the 4 historical possibilities. As in any science, the answer we have today is just the best hypothesis or theory for the data presented, always subject to revision based on new data, within the rules of nomenclature.

To be returned to Epidendrum, that genus would have to be expanded to cover most or all of the Laeliinae subtribe, or drastic new evidence would have to be presented. No more Cattleya, Brassavola, Encyclia, Laelia, Prosthechea, etc. All Epidendrum, and the subtribe designation would disappear. 

Encyclia was more or less accepted for 25+ years beginning in 1961, and became commonly used, but was never a comfortable fit anatomically. Encyclia viridiflora 1828 is the type species for Encyclia, looks a lot like Encyclia tampense. Do Encyclia tampense, cordigera, alata etc. look like a natural group with "Encyclia" cochleata to you? In the 1980s it began to fall out of scientific acceptance with the proposal to return the cockleshell orchids to...

Genus Anacheilium, first proposed in 1842, using Anachelium cochleatum as the type species. If you would like the cockleshell orchids recognized as their own genus this is your choice, as long as the evidence shows they are a monophyletic group and no older publication is found with a different name.

In 1997 it was proposed to merge the species known as the genera Anacheilium, Panarica, Pollardia, Prosthechea and Euchile, maybe some others, into one genus. Prosthechea had precedence as the oldest accepted name in the group with Prosthechea glauca as the type species, 1838. 

There seems to be little or no controversy that the relationships within this concept of genus Prosthechea are well understood on both anatomical and more recently genetic evidence. A classic lumper vs. splitter question. One genus, or up to 5 or more genera that are recognized to be closely related.

Always subject to new data or interpretation, but the only scientific controversy right now is to lump or to split - Prosthechea or Anacheilium - or maybe mega-lump to Epidendrum could be argued. Just a matter of where to draw our lines on the real world relationships that don't have any lines.

And hey... that's the nicest unpigmented flower of Prosthechea cochleata I've ever seen. It doesn't appear that a var. or f. alba or any other albescent description has ever been validly published for that combination.


----------



## NYEric (Aug 10, 2014)

That's weird, because they are not uncommon.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 10, 2014)

I got it from Orchids Limited. I don't know if they still have them or not.


----------



## Ozpaph (Aug 11, 2014)

Thanks for the taxonomy lesson. Its all so complex now............


----------



## PaphMadMan (Aug 11, 2014)

Ozpaph said:


> Thanks for the taxonomy lesson. Its all so complex now............



That's a simple one...


----------



## Erythrone (Aug 11, 2014)

A beauty!


----------

