# Cattleya Hardyana :crazy::crazy:



## Drorchid (Nov 20, 2012)

Okay sometimes Plant Taxonomy and orchid names can be confusing!!:crazy::crazy: This has nothing to do with Phrags or Paphs, but with Cattleyas.

Look at the following example:

At one point Cattleya dowiana, native to Costa Rica, and Cattleya aurea, native to Colombia were considered one and the same species, so they were both called Cattleya dowiana, the Colombian species was often called Cattleya dowiana var. aurea. Now taxonomists (including the RHS for orchid registration purposes) consider them as distinct species, but because at one time they were considered the same species, this is what has created some confusion:

"Cattleya x hardyana" is the natural hybrid between Cattleya warscewiczii and Cattleya aurea (as both species are native to Colombia). You would think that the natural hybrid Cattleya x hardyana would have the same species parents as the man made hybrid Cattleya Hardyana, but NO, I was just replating a cross I made between Cattleya warscewiczii and Cattleya aurea, and according to the RHS it should be "Cattleya Semontiana". According to the RHS, the man made hybrid "Cattleya Hardyana" is a hybrid between Cattleya warscewiczii and Cattleya dowiana.

To make it even more complex, Cattleya Hardyana is also the man made cross between Cattleya warscewiczii and Cattleya purpurata (formely known as Laelia purpurata) and Cattleya Hardyana is also the man made cross between Cattleya aclandiae and Cattleya coccinea (formely known as Sophronitis coccinea).

Are you as :crazy::crazy: I am??

Robert


----------



## cattmad (Nov 20, 2012)

dont you just love the RHS, this is what I refer to as the great cattleya debacle


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't see how this kind of mess can ever be straightened out. So what happens to future hybrids from any of these crosses?!


----------



## Roy (Nov 20, 2012)

This is explainable to an extent. In the very early days of registering crosses, it was allowable to register a cross by using the variety or clonal name of a plant. There wasn't any formal method till Sanders took it over. The re-naming/separation of plants since has extended this problem.
As an example, warscewicii, trianae, warneri, dowiana, schroderae etc were all known as varieties of C. labiata... Hence, the confusion which I note with the use of Paph insigne. It was used extensively & reading the *Original **Works* of registrations, one parent could remain constant but 3 or 4 varieties of insigne used as the other parent with the results of all different registered names of the crossings. Same with Catt's. 
The Original Works of registration, the front 1/2 lists these variations, multiple crossings with variety names. Sanders appear to have condensed this by selecting?? the one parent & ignoring the variety name thus listing only one name for the cross. This system seems to work well except it hasn't translated into todays listings.


----------



## Roy (Nov 20, 2012)

The Original Works book I'm refering to is not an Original book, its a total republication by the American Orchid Society around 1946/47 whilst Rodney Wilcox Jones was President.
Sanders' Complete list of Orchid Hybrids.
There must be copies available in the USA & with the AOS. Its amazing to read & understand why we are in such a mess now ( without the help? of botanists currently)


----------



## JeanLux (Nov 21, 2012)

:sob:They were creating the redundancies by putting Laelia and Sophronitis into Cattleya! :sob: ! Jean

It was too easy before!


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 21, 2012)

Probably a bit like Paph. conco-bellatulum and wenshanense - the distinction initially being one is man made and the other a naturally occurring hybrid.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Nov 21, 2012)

Sad thing is, once the cost of whole genome sequencing comes down, most likely they will once again separate Sophronitis from Cattleya. Choice of which segments of DNA to sequence, and the computing power required to create the 'parsimonious' cladistic trees, really are why one should not react to molecular taxonomy. 

Even after doing whole genome sequencing, there are other 'issues' with molecular taxonomy, those these probably can be sorted out.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Nov 22, 2012)

The taxonomists and the horticulturists are trying to do very different things. We, as horticulturists, seek permanence in the names we apply. Taxonomists, in the wake of Darwin destroying the idea of a static species, seek relationships where it doesn't matter if the name changes so long as you know where it "fits in". We really shouldn't be following the lead of the taxonomists. We should be adhering to the name the plant was assigned when it entered horticulture (with a footnote to the current taxonomic status). Someone should tell the RHS that they are not serving horticulture one little bit by playing the games of the taxonomists. They are just creating chaos!


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

Confusion over the parentage of older crosses of especially the cattleyas is common. It is just not only changing names but also misidentifications by the hybridizer that causes this.


----------



## bullsie (Apr 18, 2013)

I've become a real fan of the date theory. You know: Cattleya: Suchandsuch (1929), Suchandsuch (1942), and Suchandsuch. Makes me real sure of what I'm growing!


----------

