# No more Neofinetia, now Vanda



## Roy (Oct 19, 2012)

After learning of changes to the Vanda section indicated that Neofinetia had now been renamed as a Vanda. The link provided shows the changes including Ascocentrums & others to be named Vanda.

http://www.windsororchidsociety.ca/...mbinations_in_the_genus_vanda_orchidaceae.pdf


----------



## gonewild (Oct 19, 2012)

The world is loosing more species to Taxonomists than to habit destruction.


----------



## Cheyenne (Oct 19, 2012)

You have got to be kidding me. Why don't we just loose al the names and just put them in one broad category? We could just call them orchids! That would make the taxonomy a little easier, after all they are all related in some way. :rollhappy::clap::sob:


----------



## John Boy (Oct 19, 2012)

My idea would be to rename the Taxonomists as USELESS and send them all off to Sibiria to find new Species of moss under the snow in winter. I'm not having it, and I'm not changing a single lable!


----------



## Erythrone (Oct 19, 2012)

Taxonomists are not doing this just for fun...


----------



## gonewild (Oct 19, 2012)

Erythrone said:


> Taxonomists are not doing this just for fun...



Not for fun?
They get paid to do what they like to do.
Sounds like fun to me.

They do it for fun.....there is no other reason to rename species.


----------



## nikv (Oct 19, 2012)

I'll continue to call then Neos. This was about as bad of an idea as moving most of the Laelias to the genus Sophronitis. Taxonomists shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.


----------



## biothanasis (Oct 19, 2012)

John Boy said:


> My idea would be to rename the Taxonomists as USELESS and send them all off to Sibiria to find new Species of moss under the snow in winter. I'm not having it, and I'm not changing a single lable!



I really enjoyed your post...hehehehe!!


----------



## silence882 (Oct 19, 2012)

The taxonomists are changing the generic name of the non-Vanda species so that the genus Vanda makes more sense as an evolutionary unit. They are not just doing this 'for fun'.

In the phylogenetic classification of organisms, a genus, or any other taxonomic group (family, class, order, etc.), needs to be composed of all the species derived from a single common ancestor. All these scientists are saying is that the way that makes most sense evolutionarily speaking is to include all these species under a single genus, Vanda.

If orchid growers and other people in the horticultural trade keep using the currently common generic names, the taxonomists are not going to care. If the new classification is generally accepted in the scientific community, the taxonomists will just regard the horticultural names as synonyms.

There's really no need for a conflict, here.

--Stephen


----------



## Tom499 (Oct 19, 2012)

I completely agree, silence 882.

Taxa have to be revised as new evidence becomes available.


----------



## John Boy (Oct 19, 2012)

Stephen, I'm getting your point. Only: I'm not buying into what they do, and I don't care if they'd want to come up with a new idea in 6 months, wanting to call the whole thing Cattleya, because some gen-research has brought up the fact that Vandas are early, very basic forms of Cattleyas.

And when it comes to Neos: They should just and simply stay away. If anything, it should be in japanese hands, to alter things..., and not up to some 23 year old kid who has no idea about what Neos involve.


----------



## Erythrone (Oct 19, 2012)

silence882 said:


> The taxonomists are changing the generic name of the non-Vanda species so that the genus Vanda makes more sense as an evolutionary unit. They are not just doing this 'for fun'.
> 
> In the phylogenetic classification of organisms, a genus, or any other taxonomic group (family, class, order, etc.), needs to be composed of all the species derived from a single common ancestor. All these scientists are saying is that the way that makes most sense evolutionarily speaking is to include all these species under a single genus, Vanda.
> 
> ...



I agree!!


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 19, 2012)

Iti's not just Neos that are affected...


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 19, 2012)

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over this....I love taxonomy. It's one of the most fascinating aspects of biology to me, because it is simply a means of marking the pathway of evolution. As such, there will always be changes, as new genetic info is found that alters or even confirms earlier ideas about classification. But I am also an orchid hobbyist. I see no conflict in keeping the older labels on my plants that are familiar to me. If taxonomists now see Neofinetia as a Vanda, fine with me. If they have the evidence, I am willing to go along with their ideas. As a hobbyist, my Neos are still Neos. Vanda's are the big plants that look nice and are easy to grow and take up too much space for me to grow more than 2. Neo's are the fragrant ones that are not so easy to grow, but so small that I can collect a bunch. The fact is that there is TAXONOMY, the science, based on evolutionary relationships and descent. Then there is simple classification, which is descriptive. I use both, and believe in both, as they are applied differently. Case in point: In high school, many of us learned about the 5 kingdoms. Protists were the unicellular Eukaryotes. Now, there are 3 domains, a much larger category containing the kingdoms. Most kingdoms, such as Plantae, are still the same. But the Protists no longer exist...no single line of descent, but multiple lines. Scientifically, protists no longer exist, and scientists can't decide on how many kingdoms to replace them with. But what do you call an organism that fits the description of single celled Eukaryote? Why, protist, of course.


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 20, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> It's one of the most fascinating aspects of biology to me, because it is simply a means of marking the pathway of evolution. .



So if I'm a creationist I can ignore this 'memo'?


----------



## abax (Oct 20, 2012)

I think genetic research is enormously valuable, but I don't have to bring it into my greenhouse to enjoy my orchids.
Eric, I think you have updated "knickers in a twist".


----------



## bullsie (Oct 20, 2012)

Ozpaph said:


> So if I'm a creationist I can ignore this 'memo'?



I love it!!!

You know, I think the next time I'd like to know the parentage of my orchids I'm going to skip the RHS registry and go straight to the taxonomists for the info. And don't be telling me to go to the breeder or seller either! The tag has the name and that REALLY should be all I need to go by. oke:


----------



## JeanLux (Oct 20, 2012)

Imo, it is not getting easier for RHS trying to synchronize old and new 'names' ! When I am looking for parentage of my SLC Jewel Box, I do not want to hear where I would have to look for finding it with the 'new name'  !!!! But as long as old and 'new' will coexcist it's ok for me! Jean


----------



## Paph_LdyMacBeth (Oct 20, 2012)

...Can we put Masdevallias back together please!!!
LOL

I'd be happy to call neo's vandas...at least I can keep it all straight! 
Its like calling things "cattleya type plant" oh man did that get me in s**t

Sent from my BlackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## fbrem (Oct 21, 2012)

Tom499 said:


> I completely agree, silence 882.
> 
> Taxa have to be revised as new evidence becomes available.



Bam, I'll second that. I for one prefer to unite groups that obviously share a recent common ancestor.


----------



## Shiva (Oct 21, 2012)

Get used to it. A recent study showed that just about everything we know has a half-life of truth of 40 years or so. The numbers may be different for every discipline of science. So 40 years from now, or 20 or 30, half of the orchid names we take for granted will be synonyms. :evil:


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Oct 21, 2012)

Ha ha! I can tell you one thing, I'm not going to be calling neos "Vanda falcata" on my website - nobody would think to search for it :rollhappy: Vanda what???

Somehow this makes me think of one of Jimi Hendrix's lyrics: 

The traffic lights they turn up blue tomorrow
And shine their emptiness down on my bed


----------



## bullsie (Oct 22, 2012)

Shiva said:


> Get used to it. A recent study showed that just about everything we know has a half-life of truth of 40 years or so. The numbers may be different for every discipline of science. So 40 years from now, or 20 or 30, half of the orchid names we take for granted will be synonyms. :evil:



I could get used to the change if they did a few over a 40 year period. I just can't get used to the hundreds of name changes in a few days and a week later they change again.oke: 

If I changed my name tags, I'd definitely have to put a gross of yard sale blinds in stock. I couldn't recognize anyone, but I could update labels cheaply!


----------



## Shiva (Oct 22, 2012)

Now that I keep mostly phrags and multifloral paphs, I don't worry as much for the nomenclature of other orchids. So my tags shouldn't change that much in the future.


----------



## John Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

They'll actually both be Masdevallias as of next week. They found the proof in a lab at Hogwarts last week....


----------



## NYEric (Oct 22, 2012)

John Boy said:


> And when it comes to Neos: They should just and simply stay away. If anything, it should be in japanese hands, to alter things..., and not up to some 23 year old kid who has no idea about what Neos involve.



This would not work as the Japanese assign an aesthetic to these plants that is not objective. 



Ozpaph said:


> So if I'm a creationist I can ignore this 'memo'?



 Oh no he didn't! 



Paph_LdyMacBeth;384342I'd be happy to call neo's vandas...at least I can keep it all straight!
Its like calling things "cattleya type plant" oh man did that get me in s**t
[/QUOTE said:


> Actually when they recently, temporarily clumped Catts together I thought it would work but then they came out with all the non-identifying, inter-species names that just F'd everything up!


----------



## bullsie (Oct 22, 2012)

John Boy said:


> They'll actually both be Masdevallias as of next week. They found the proof in a lab at Hogwarts last week....



:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## fbrem (Oct 22, 2012)

We also need to remember that taxonomic (evolutionary) relationships are just hypotheses and, thus, are always open to testing and revision. They are not proven (science can only disprove, never prove) and thus will never be set in stone. Hobby folks and breeders should be able to call them whatever they want. However, in order for evolutionary biologists to understand how all this diversity came to be, hypotheses must be tested time and time again, and if a hypothesis is disproven it needs to be modified in light of new data. BTW, I love this thread!!!


----------



## cattmad (Oct 22, 2012)

what I dont think the taxonomists care about is the damage is being done to the orchid growing community by their constant changes, I have seen elderly growers who have grown and shown for years turn up to a show with a Blc. only to find it refused because it's not called that anymore, so they find out it is now an sc so they fix it, two years later same thing, it's now something else because sophronitis doesn't exist anymore, they dont understand because it has been a blc. for the last 40 years, they become discouraged and just stop showing

as pointed out in another thread societies find it almost impossible to attract newer growers and at the some time we are alienating many of the older ones

Science is fantastic, but at what point does it become pointless to the people who just want to enjoy growing orchids and not have to worry about what the latest crackpot taxonomist says. The cattleya debacle of the last ten years should resonate very clearly with alot of people.

my two cents worth


----------



## Tom499 (Oct 22, 2012)

Plant taxonomy is a very under funded, under appreciated area. Those who do commit the time and effort, do, more often than not do it purely for knowledge and insight. They don't clump and split just to annoy hobby growers.


----------



## cnycharles (Oct 22, 2012)

(epiphany) I think that every time a taxonomist changes the name of something, there should be a five year grace period where it gets tossed around, and if it holds, then the name gets changed. by that time, the new name may be in circulation a little bit so not to be so much of a shock. just because someone can look at something and decide on their own that something needs to be changed, doesn't mean it should impact everyone right away.

even though genetic information is being used now to check out what an orchid might be, only very small bits of information are being used and looked at. also someone may be using 'not very good scientific methods' to come to their conclusions. if someone were to look at the 98% of chimp dna that is the same between humans, they would say that humans and chimps were the same species. ... look at the other 2%, and 'they're different'....


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Oct 22, 2012)

Tom499 said:


> Plant taxonomy is a very under funded, under appreciated area.



To paraphrase Monty Python: "We need more plant taxonomists!" 

The old cladistic models based on relating gross morphology of course were subject to revision. The fact that plant hobbyists are subject to those revisions is purely accidental, not premeditated :rollhappy:

In Japan they circumvent this whole thing by using the old Japanese names for everything - including the scientists BTW. As many of you know, Neofinetia falcata is known as fuuran in Japanese, and the special forms are called fuukiran. This is not a matter of being elitist either, it is just the system they use. So, no matter what genus this plant ultimately ends up in, it will always be fuuran/fuukiran in Japan.


----------



## Shiva (Oct 22, 2012)

And in early spring, sometimes, I like to go up in the mountains and look at the Lady Slippers.


----------



## John Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

They'll be Mormodes not before long!


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 22, 2012)

John Boy said:


> They'll be Mormodes not before long!



:rollhappy:


----------



## Roy (Oct 22, 2012)

As a thought, with these name changes, the "old" name is still in fact a proper name but as a "Synonym". At present, the Victorian regional Judging panel is accepting whatever name is on the plant, Blc, Potinara, Slc, Neofinetia, Vanda, Ascda etc. The general member/exhibitor is the last to know of these changes "because" they are not broadly advertised to the world. These changes should be put into the orchid world for discussion & comment on how its to be handled. Once a general consensus is reached, then change or not change.
All this changing makes all species orchid books ever written invalid and put ALL new growers of orchids at a great disadvantage because they would be hard up to learn about an orchid as they won't easily be able to find it in a book.
They would have to get all the name changes, from & to, to refer back and where do you find that ??? You can't !!!!!!
All this does is create heated discussion between lumpers & splitters & confusion to all.


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 23, 2012)

burn the witch.............


----------



## bullsie (Oct 23, 2012)

In truth, as they are changing names so frequently, each new person could be introduced to the same orchid under a different name. Somehow, that doesn't sound like progress or clarity in the orchid world-which I thought was important. Oh well, silly me......I just don't buy the ones I can't identify (which helps me know what I can grow and what I can't - but then again, who needs that information).


----------



## NYEric (Oct 23, 2012)

Ozpaph said:


> burn the witch.............


:rollhappy:


----------



## fbrem (Oct 23, 2012)

cattmod made a great point and made me think that RHS just needs to define a stop point and stick with the names they have at that point, taxonomy be damned. Why does taxonomic and horticultural nomenclature need to pair up? As long as we have names that both groups can work with to keep plants separate we should be good, right? Let taxonomists deal with all the synonyms and let the hobby growers and breeders just enjoy their plants.


----------



## Paph_LdyMacBeth (Oct 23, 2012)

.....annnnnnd only on Slippertalk would a conversation about taxonomy be so much fun!


----------



## gonewild (Oct 23, 2012)

Paph_LdyMacBeth said:


> .....annnnnnd only on Slippertalk would a conversation about taxonomy be so much fun!



It's only on page 5, give it a couple more pages....
It's been the weekend and all the taxonomists have been partying.
:evil:


----------



## silence882 (Oct 23, 2012)

A lot of the conflict that arises here comes from the inherently different nature of taxonomy vs. horticulture.

Taxonomists are interested in finding what makes the most scientific sense with regards to plant classification. They are only interested in the phylogenetic arrangement of species and assign them to different genera accordingly. There are some pretty rigid rules they must follow when constructing different groups (e.g. monophyly), but there is enough wiggle room that two competent taxonomists can come up with different schemes for arranging groups, both with good reasoning behind them.

People on the horticultural side are interested in naming plants based on what makes the most sense for people growing the plants. It may well be that a horticulturist would prefer to break down a taxonomist's genus into subgroups because it makes more sense from a horticultural point of view. This should not be viewed as a 'wrong' practice, just something that is useful for horticulture while scientifically irrelevant.

For example, according to McCook, a taxonomist who did the only in-depth field study I know of of the phrags, _Phrag. boissierianum_ is an extremely variable species in the wild. She considers _Phrag. czerwiakowianum_ and _Phrag. reticulatum_ to be synonyms of _Phrag. boissierianum_ because they all fall within the range of normal variation for the species. However, in horticulture you can find _Phrag. boissierianum_, _Phrag. czerwiakowianum_, and _Phrag. reticulatum_ being sold as unique species. This is because within the range of _Phrag. boissierianum_, it is useful to define 3 separate groups for horticultural purposes (i.e. they differ enough that they can be grown as separate 'species'). To me, this is not a conflict between taxonomy and horticulture, but rather each area using the nomenclature that is most useful to it.

I realize that the name changes the taxonomists come up with can be confusing for the horticulturalists, but there's no law out there saying the horticulturalists must immediately change their tags every time a new taxonomic scheme is unveiled.

It is also important to note that there is no single 'official' source of new taxonomic schemes. There are sometimes many competing schemes out at the same time, none of which is universally accepted. A good example in the slipper world are the competing infrageneric schemes for _Paphiopedilum_ of Cribb vs. Braem & Chiron. This is a great (i.e. fun to think about) debate among taxonomists, but horticulturalists don't have to care at all about it, as it has no effect whatsoever on them.

Also, I would like to point out that these changes are not being proposed lightly by some rogue taxonomist out to shake up the orchid world. They are being proposed in preparation for the publication of the next volume of _Genera Orchidacearum_, which is probably the best, most thorough scientific treatment of orchids ever published. It's being put together by leading orchid scientists from around the world. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who will disagree with some of the conclusions reached in the series, but in order to be taken seriously there need to be logical arguments against what's been put forward. Saying 'this is how I've always done it and I'm too stubborn to change' is not a reasonable argument against good science.

People who don't want to abandon using _Neofinetia_ for historic reasons are overlooking the fact that the species was originally described as _Orchis falcata_ in 1784. It was transferred to _Vanda_ in 1854. _Neofinetia_ wasn't created until 1925. All these changes represent different understandings of the appropriate relationships between the various species in various genera. Modern molecular data is a gold mine for helping to nail down the most accurate phylogeny that should be used. That is what is driving the current changes being proposed.

I, for one, am excited by all the new research that is being done on orchid taxonomy.

--Stephen


----------



## John Boy (Oct 23, 2012)

Stephen,
in a perfect world everything you just said makes total and very perfect sense. All of it does.
I understand the concept of what you’re saying, and weren’t it for the “human factor” I’d be happy to support taxonomy. However, and having said that: 
and if I had it my way, I’d stop all public funding to orchid Taxonomy in a heartbeat. 

Now being 40 years of age, and having been around orchids since I was 12 I have a very strong dislike for everything that comes even close to taxonomy. I would even go as far as to say: I try and keep away from most orchid-folk (in real life) as much as I possibly can. It appears to me that most orchid people collect orchids to cover personal issues, and to use society meetings to collect praise for themselves. And it’s that same principal that applies to people breeding orchids for the medals and awards, and the very same principal applied to a few taxonomists I had the “pleasure” of getting to know personally. To give these claims a face: I lived in Munich for most of my 20ies, and came to know Willi Koeniger, and eventually Luer, as his counter-part. “Hideous” is the word that connected these to people! Once you come to understand their mind-set, you’re basically upset belonging to the same species as they do, for years to come. I’ve never seen any group of people so far away from conservation as these 2. I’ve seen once in a lifetime Draculas, Bolleas and other plants that have come out of the last living forest stretches in Colombia, Peru or Bolivia to be killed in the name Science, Vanity and overall to support their little game of “Mine is bigger than yours!” 
Pollinating and preserving (hence delaying the plants’ –in some cases species’- imminent/ as well as likely) extinction in return for yet another new species, to them means as little as does the entire concept of preserving something rather than to press it and put a boring text of Latin next to it. Seeing a greater picture in the face of Taxonomy appears to be utterly counterproductive. If we include our very own Uncle Guido into that same frame… it should become clear to everyone, what sort of a “Science” we’re up against.

No Sir, no Taxonomy for me please!!! *I’d rather make people like that redundant and give the funding they’re flushing down the toilet in the name of vanity to Greenpeace.*


----------



## NYEric (Oct 23, 2012)

John Boy said:


> I would even go as far as to say: I try and keep away from most orchid-folk (in real life) as much as I possibly can. It appears to me that most orchid people collect orchids to cover personal issues, and to use society meetings to collect praise for themselves. And it’s that same principal that applies to people breeding orchids for the medals and awards, and the very same principal applied to a few taxonomists I had the “pleasure” of getting to know personally.



My feelings is now hurted!


----------



## John Boy (Oct 23, 2012)

Cynical!!!


----------



## NYEric (Oct 23, 2012)

The proper word is "jaded"!


----------



## emydura (Oct 23, 2012)

cattmad said:


> what I dont think the taxonomists care about is the damage is being done to the orchid growing community by their constant changes, I have seen elderly growers who have grown and shown for years turn up to a show with a Blc. only to find it refused because it's not called that anymore, so they find out it is now an sc so they fix it, two years later same thing, it's now something else because sophronitis doesn't exist anymore, they dont understand because it has been a blc. for the last 40 years, they become discouraged and just stop showing
> 
> as pointed out in another thread societies find it almost impossible to attract newer growers and at the some time we are alienating many of the older ones
> 
> ...




Brett - scientists don't and should never consider the impact their decisions have on us orchid growers. Their only interest is in determining the relationships between a group of plants. Most of them probably don't even grow orchids. As technology improves and more data comes in, the taxonomy of plants will continue to change. It would make no sense for scientists to bury their heads in the sand and retain a classification structure they know is completely wrong. The taxonomic classification system is more than just a method of giving a species a name. It is also a structure that describes the relationships between a group of species. If that structure is proven to be incorrect, than it needs to change. As Stephen said, the changes have little impact on us orchid growers. 

Sometimes the taxonomists do consider the impact their changes have on us. Acacia's are found in both South Africa and Australia. Only a handful occur in South Africa and around a 1000 species in Australia. Taxonomists ended up splitting the two groups into a separate genus. In theory the Australian group should have had to change their name as the South African species was classified first. But it was considered the impact it would have on the Australian group was so large they decided to bend the rules and rename the South African group. So instead of us having to call them Racosperma we can keep calling the wattles in our gardens Acacia.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 23, 2012)

emydura said:


> Most of them probably don't even grow orchids.



Probably even fewer have seen an orchid growing in the wild.
oke:




> Sometimes the taxonomists do consider the impact their changes have on us. Acacia's are found in both South Africa and Australia. Only a handful occur in South Africa and around a 1000 species in Australia. Taxonomists ended up splitting the two groups into a separate genus. In theory the Australian group should have had to change their name as the South African species was classified first. But it was considered the impact it would have on the Australian group was so large they decided to bend the rules and rename the South African group. So instead of us having to call them Racosperma we can keep calling the wattles in our gardens Acacia.



So it is OK to mess with the South Africans as long as they don't mess with the Australians? What about the South Americans that have to call them Acacia? Two against one....why did Australia win?


----------



## paphreek (Oct 23, 2012)

I perceive that the problem is that the RHS registry of orchids currently follows Kew gardens classifications, which is fine. However, the horticultural names just shouldn't be changed so quickly.

I agree with cnycharles that there should be a delay between taxonomic reclassification and horticultural reclassification. Once the new taxonomy is generally accepted and relatively stable, it can then be integrated into horticultural names. I think a period of between 20 to 40 years might be best. I'll most likely be dead by then!


----------



## cattmad (Oct 23, 2012)

emydura said:


> Brett - scientists don't and should never consider the impact their decisions have on us orchid growers. Their only interest is in determining the relationships between a group of plants. Most of them probably don't even grow orchids. As technology improves and more data comes in, the taxonomy of plants will continue to change. It would make no sense for scientists to bury their heads in the sand and retain a classification structure they know is completely wrong. The taxonomic classification system is more than just a method of giving a species a name. It is also a structure that describes the relationships between a group of species. If that structure is proven to be incorrect, than it needs to change. As Stephen said, the changes have little impact on us orchid growers.



David -I'm not saying that scientists should consider their impact on orchid growers, I am saying that the RHS should. The cattleya alliance debacle is a disgrace and with many AOC aligned societies refusing to accept plants labelled as their original or what became their transient name until they are relabeled in their new names most of the older cattleya growers have become well beyond jaded have a look around australia, interest in cattleyas has just died, you cant sell top plants and quality of plants hitting show benches has also dropped away dramatically, not to mention the quality of the some of the plants being awarded.

Brad


----------



## emydura (Oct 23, 2012)

gonewild said:


> So it is OK to mess with the South Africans as long as they don't mess with the Australians? What about the South Americans that have to call them Acacia? Two against one....why did Australia win?



Whipped them like we will whip them in the cricket in a couple of weeks. oke:

I'm not sure Australia has won yet. It seems very controversial. If you are interested, here is a paper from the IBC meeting describing the discussions regarding the Acacia group. It seemed handy that the meeting was held in Melbourne, Australia.  

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2011/00000060/00000005/art00033



cattmad said:


> David -I'm not saying that scientists should consider their impact on orchid growers, I am saying that the RHS should. The cattleya alliance debacle is a disgrace and with many AOC aligned societies refusing to accept plants labelled as their original or what became their transient name until they are relabeled in their new names most of the older cattleya growers have become well beyond jaded have a look around australia, interest in cattleyas has just died, you cant sell top plants and quality of plants hitting show benches has also dropped away dramatically, not to mention the quality of the some of the plants being awarded.
> 
> Brad



I don't disagree with what you and Ross have said on this. I don't think there is an urgent need for the RHS to align with the latest taxonomy.


----------



## Craig Gibbon (Oct 24, 2012)

David, 

First of all, Acacia's (as we still call them here) are not restricted to South Africa but the whole of Africa and into the Arabian peninsula. As a keen tree spotter I've been watching this discussion with great interest. As far as I'm a aware, they have not settled on a name and our South African Botanists will be contesting the name change. Proposed names that were submitted were Senagalia as well as Afrocacia. My personal opinion is that African Acacia should have retained the name Acacia as the first Acacia was described from an African species and the Australian species should have changed. 
As with the Neofinetia debacle, I will still refer to them as Neofinetia. 

Regards,

Craig Gibbon. 

www.flickr.com/photos/craig_gibbon.


----------



## emydura (Oct 24, 2012)

Craig Gibbon said:


> David,
> 
> First of all, Acacia's (as we still call them here) are not restricted to South Africa but the whole of Africa and into the Arabian peninsula. As a keen tree spotter I've been watching this discussion with great interest. As far as I'm a aware, they have not settled on a name and our South African Botanists will be contesting the name change. Proposed names that were submitted were Senagalia as well as Afrocacia. My personal opinion is that African Acacia should have retained the name Acacia as the first Acacia was described from an African species and the Australian species should have changed.
> As with the Neofinetia debacle, I will still refer to them as Neofinetia.
> ...



Thanks Craig. Yes, after reading that paper they are a lot more widespread than I had realised. Still the vast majority of species are in Australia. I would agree with you that the Australian Acacia's should change (mostly to Racosperma) rather than the African species. That is the taxonomic convention. The impact here would be pretty big. Certainly a lot more than this orchid debate. It is our biggest genus of plants and widely grown in gardens. But then you don't show wattles like orchids. But Acacia's are such a big part of our country that change would be difficult. But we would get over it, eventually.


----------



## Roy (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm just wondering what will happen, with these constant name changes, with CITIES. I would like to think that the authorities are being updated.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 24, 2012)

Roy said:


> ..with CITIES. I would like to think that the authorities are being updated.


Hahhahahahhhahhahahhahhahhaaaa!! So funny!
:rollhappy:


----------



## Roy (Oct 24, 2012)

I think I've made Eric's day.


----------



## s1214215 (Oct 28, 2012)

I know a few botanists and taxonomists and two have said of late to me that the genetic testing of plants is still not a precise science and needs refinement for accuracy. The people doing the genetic testing don't even agree with each other.

I feel that allows the people involved a certain leeway in how they push the findings they come up with. 

So when it comes to naming and renaming based upon genetic testing, I am not convinced if it is really ready for the task yet.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 29, 2012)

I think that one of the objections to using molecular data in plant taxonomy is that they are not comparing genomes, but only certain genes or stretches of DNA. The feeling is that a close match for one of these genes does not indicate equivalent closeness overall, and until whole genomes can be compared, holding DNA as the final say is premature.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Oct 30, 2012)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I think that one of the objections to using molecular data in plant taxonomy is that they are not comparing genomes, but only certain genes or stretches of DNA. The feeling is that a close match for one of these genes does not indicate equivalent closeness overall, and until whole genomes can be compared, holding DNA as the final say is premature.



I have a friend studying evolutionary/taxanomic relationships in killifish. He has been doing this since 1990-something... He has found that for each each subgroup of fish he has to pretty much re-invent the wheel and find a new set of genes to sequence and analyse as these fish are so sensitive to natural selection and founder effects. I imagine that our niche-loving orchids are no different. If you use one set of genes you get one answer. Use another and you get another answer to the question of relationships. Of course, what gene set you use will depend on what question you want to answer. One friend is doing a phylogeny on Nothobranchius killifish while another friend is making a phylogeny for biogeographic purposes of Nothobranchius just for Zambia. They are using very different genes to answer their questions... Neither is wrong but neither will be right for all questions asked.

Yes, Neofinetia shares a common biology and ancestry with Vanda. Hooray. We knew that for well on close to 100 years. In a few years time someone will come along, use a different set of genes to study the small groups and Neofinetia will magically appear out of the scientific aether again.

I really don't think we, as horticulturists, should be following the taxonomists. Our groupings are based on cultural characteristics, not evolutionary theory. Let the taxonomists have their fun... They will eventually catch up with us.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Oct 30, 2012)

DNA sequencing is becoming more and more automated. Computing power is increasing. Whole genome sequencing is becoming feasible, slowly. Right now whole genome sequencing is too expensive, it is only being used for economic species that can get the funding, such as humans, some crops and other big grant applications. But in the not too distant future, it won't cost much to let a researcher with a robot in the lab, do whole genome sequencing. Then I wager, many of the classical taxonomic names that had been discarded based on single gene or short sequence analysis will be resurected. And Laelias and Neofinettia will be back!


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2012)

PLUS, Oncidium & Odontoglossum, not all in one !!!! Oncidium.


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 30, 2012)

I just learned that my Onc. Sweet Sugar is now Oncidesa Sweet Sugar.


----------



## Roy (Oct 31, 2012)

Its gotta stop soon Dot. Can't take much more of it. Like most growers I would think.


----------



## bullsie (Oct 31, 2012)

Oncidesa Sweet Sugar...oh that's what that is now. See, now I will know what I am refusing to buy because I don't know what it is!


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 31, 2012)

It gets worse:
It is Oncidesa Aloha Iwanaga x Gomesa varicosum


----------



## Roy (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh! wonderful, how is any new or established orchid grower going to research these orchids with their new names if they don't know what the old one was ??
I asked this question elsewhere,
What's the chances of Sarcochilus & Phalaenopsis etc being changed as they are all Vandaceous & interbreed. Someone will find a link somewhere.


----------



## Roy (Oct 31, 2012)

If this copies properly, here is the response I received from Julian, RHS Registrar.
Hello Roy

Thank you for your e-mail query.

Yes, there are many changes being made in this group as preparation for the publication of Genera Orchidacearum vol. 6. 
However, the RHS waits until after the volume is published and then makes the changes collectively rather than piecemeal. 
Hence while I am aware of some of these changes I am continuing to use the old names in the register for now (until late 2013 /early 2014 probably.)

The main reason for this is that implementing these changes will require the establishment of many new hybrid generic names. These names are dependant of each of their component genera, so that if one generic component changes name, the hybrid generic name also has to be changed. If I change everything containing Neofinetia now to its Vanda equivalent, many of these names will have to be changed a second or third time when the other components change. So it is better to wait until one knows what all the changes will be then change everything together once. 

Fortunately this is the last volume of GO.

As for asking the opinion of the Japanese, there are Japanese members on the Advisory Panel, and their view point will be taken into consideration. So far, I do not know what their reaction is to Neofinetia. 

Best wishes
Julian.


----------



## cnycharles (Oct 31, 2012)

they're all vandas now, too!  (or actually maybe all of them are going to become kingidiums now)


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 1, 2012)

So they are not going to touch the Slippers???


----------



## Paul Mc (Nov 1, 2012)

Didn't you hear? They are all now Oncidium Alliance!!! ROFL, just kidding.... Sorry, bad joke....


----------



## Roy (Nov 2, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> So they are not going to touch the Slippers???



Probably haven't got that genus yet !!!!
maybe they'll all go back to Cypripedium.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Aug 27, 2013)

Roy said:


> ...As for asking the opinion of the Japanese, there are Japanese members on the Advisory Panel, and their view point will be taken into consideration. So far, I do not know what their reaction is to Neofinetia.
> 
> Best wishes
> Julian.



I'll bet they won't care in the least since they never use the Latin name anyway. This species will remain in their eyes to be fuuran or fuukiran - nothing lost.


----------



## bullsie (Aug 28, 2013)

Kind of nice to see this thread come up again. I, like most, have found it difficult to keep up with what my plants real names are - actually I don't. I am deleting the RHS comment I originally made - just up in the air on them. The only names that truly need changing are the species. Fine, let that be that. But do not change the accepted designation of the hybrids. This would surely aid in the identifying of hybrids, and must surely help the orchid industry.

For example - I use all make believe names here! I cross Laelia tallish with Cattleya shortish. Under the rules that have existed for quite some time and registered as Lc Ish - a success by the way garnering a FCC/AOS in 1975. For more than 30 years this plant has had success both in breeding and financially. 

But what if the RHS said ok. Let's rename the species, but let's keep the accepted name. So, Lc Ish, under new and improved species designation we find it is C tallish x C shortish (that was Wednesday. Monday it was Soph. shortish and by Thursday they think it may change again). The species can be changed as often as possible without the loss of hybrid names and identity. It will continue to be labeled Lc Ish and all offspring will continue with 'old' rules of horticulture. Might this aid in keeping millions of hybrids from being lost, NOID, plants? 

Otherwise, with species name changes, there are now three Cattley Ish plants out there since the change (Goodness! Sounds like menopause!). And while everyone says, oh, it has the synonym name to help....NOOOOO!!! Not so folks! After the 'new name' is given, the next generation will not have the synonym. It is now gone. And another NOID is born.

Maybe I view this as too simple. But surely some form of division between taxonomy and horticulture can be devised to keep orchids properly identified long term. The economic world is haphazard enough. I, for one, don't buy plants I have no idea what they are. I don't know what the bloom will be like unless the grower knows for sure (provided that is who I purchase it from) - by the way, C Ish will only bloom out in shades of green, and C Ish will only bloom out in shades of orange red. C Ish is on the fence as to what it will bloom out. Understand my meaning here?

Just my 2 cents here.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 28, 2013)

It's a big mess and not likely to clean up soon.

I think the problem with your system is that future breeding of species/hybrids with new changed names will be confusing when comparing with the same species/hybrids with the old names.


----------



## bullsie (Aug 30, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> It's a big mess and not likely to clean up soon.
> 
> I think the problem with your system is that future breeding of species/hybrids with new changed names will be confusing when comparing with the same species/hybrids with the old names.



They are now! No two ways about it, it's a mess! I used to like going into the RHS and getting a little more info on my plants - good idea of what hybrids will bloom out as. Now it's a nightmare. How can it clean up? From a collector/growers standpoint, I just don't think I have the choices I once had as I am stymied by 'what is this?' labeling. Sad, very sad.


----------



## MattWoelfsen (Aug 30, 2013)

Oh well, a Neofinetia by any other name is still a Neofinetia!


----------

