# Sophronitis Cattleya?



## Stone (May 24, 2017)

I'm doing a talk on Sophronitis at our club soon.
I thought about whether I should call it ''The little red cattleyas'' as that might appease the more ''rigid'' members. But I'll be damned if I'm going to call them Cattleyas. I don't really care what the DNA sequencing says. Surely there is something missing in a system which lumps Soph coccinea with Cattleya warscewiczii! I don't care about evolutionary lines either.
What does a wolf and a chiwawa have in common for all practical purposes?

Am I right or wrong?


----------



## cattmad (May 24, 2017)

I'm with you on this, taxonomists have wreaked havoc on the catts, I dont even show mine anymore because I refuse to change labels.

Give it another few years they will probably be something else anyways


----------



## SlipperFan (May 24, 2017)

It would be OK if this were the final change. But how many times in the last 15 years have the Catt alliance members been re-classified? When will it happen again?


----------



## John M (May 25, 2017)

I say you're right! Sophronitis are NOT Cattleyas. NO WAY! If the botanists want to call them Cattleyas because of some sort of DNA evidence, I don't care. However, I see NO reason why the horticultural world needs to comply. Horticulture is not a science.....it's not Botany. Horticulture (which is very different from Agriculture), is all about growing plants that we enjoy, mostly to look at. When I look at a Sophronitis coccinea, I am not seeing something that looks closely related to Cattleya warscewiczii. For the purposes of preventing confusion amongst all the Cattleya alliance intergeneric hybrids and valuable plants being lost to obscurity because of improper label changes, I disagree with horticulturalists being told we must use the nomenclature "flavour of the month". It serves us no valuable purpose. So, I say stick to Sophronitis and tell the "rigid" members to get a brain. If any of them actually voice their objection, tell them that they can call these plants whatever the hell they want, when they are giving a talk; but, while the stage is yours, Sophronitis is a valid Genus and coccinea, etc., is not a Cattleya.


----------



## naoki (May 25, 2017)

For hobbyists, it probably doesn't matter as long as people can understand what you are talking about (after all languages and names are made up by human to communicate). You can even use common (not bionomial) names. But for scientists, we need to have a system where people can understand the scientific knowledge after hundreds and thousands of years from now. So we need to have some rules.

After reading a several papers discussing these issues, I agree with van den Berg et al that inclusive genus Cattleya seems to be more reasonable and less confusing solution. It is not the only way to solve the problem, though, and there are several different philosophies of systematics.

One of the advantages of the Linnean system of scientific naming is that the name can represent the (evolutionary) relationships. So it is useful for biologists. Morphological similarity among species can be interesting, but it is difficult to talk about the biology without their evolutionary history (i.e. is a similar morphological character derived independently or just a historical inertia). Systematists put lots of importance in monophyly when they are trying to define the hierarchy (which is a little arbitrary if you think how evolution occurs).


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2017)

John M said:


> I say you're right! Sophronitis are NOT Cattleyas. NO WAY! If the botanists want to call them Cattleyas because of some sort of DNA evidence, I don't care. However, I see NO reason why the horticultural world needs to comply. Horticulture is not a science.....it's not Botany. Horticulture (which is very different from Agriculture), is all about growing plants that we enjoy, mostly to look at. When I look at a Sophronitis coccinea, I am not seeing something that looks closely related to Cattleya warscewiczii. For the purposes of preventing confusion amongst all the Cattleya alliance intergeneric hybrids and valuable plants being lost to obscurity because of improper label changes, I disagree with horticulturalists being told we must use the nomenclature "flavour of the month". It serves us no valuable purpose. So, I say stick to Sophronitis and tell the "rigid" members to get a brain. If any of them actually voice their objection, tell them that they can call these plants whatever the hell they want, when they are giving a talk; but, while the stage is yours, Sophronitis is a valid Genus and coccinea, etc., is not a Cattleya.



:rollhappy:

Maybe I'll just say the word Sophronitis at them and wait. :viking: 
The older members feel the same way as us.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 25, 2017)

I would title it "Cattleya coccinea, alias Sophronitis" or something like that, then say Sophronitis for the rest of the presentation


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (May 25, 2017)

At the beginning put it up to a vote!


----------



## Secundino (May 25, 2017)

As long as botanists and hobbyist can tell a group of plants (Sophronitis) apart from another group(Cattleya), just by looking at them, it's ok to keep them apart. That adn-comparison still has not achieved finding the differences that obviously must be there, doesn't justify to lump them all together. Separating mexican from brasilian Laelias is a good idea, as is the splitting of Cattleya and Guarianthe. 
A Sophronitis is a Sophronitis is a Sophronitis ... !


----------



## PaphMadMan (May 25, 2017)

Secundino said:


> As long as botanists and hobbyist can tell a group of plants (Sophronitis) apart from another group(Cattleya), just by looking at them, it's ok to keep them apart. That adn-comparison still has not achieved finding the differences that obviously must be there, doesn't justify to lump them all together. Separating mexican from brasilian Laelias is a good idea, as is the splitting of Cattleya and Guarianthe.
> A Sophronitis is a Sophronitis is a Sophronitis ... !



Complex topic. I was going to stay out of it, but...

I might go along with that except other than being generally small and orange, Sophronitis cernua (the original Sophronitis, the one that must be Sophronitis if anything is) and "Sophronitis" coccinea really don't look much alike. Vegetatively they each resemble different "Brazilian Laelia" groups more closely, and that may show their true relationships. Superficial similarity of the flowers in human perception is a pretty weak basis for taxonomy, like "Lets put all the yellow ones in one genus and all the purple ones in another genus because that's easy to see". The evidence is that either most of the "Brazilian Laelia" must be called Sophronitis (based on precedence), OR several new genera need to be accepted (Hadrolaelia, Brasilaelia, Hoffmannseggella, etc.) and ONLY Sophronitis cernua remains Sophronitis, OR they can all be Cattleya.

I agree with John M that horticultural use doesn't have to follow botany. RHS made a mess of things when they resisted all change for a century, then changed their minds every 15 minutes for a few years. Horticultural classes could be devised for orchids as they are for roses and many others, but that would cause more than a few heads to explode too.

As far as the talk is concerned I would point out it was Cattleya coccinea (1836) before it was Sophronitis coccinea (1862) so the truly conservative approach is Cattleya, but you'll be saying Sophronitis because it is simply the way your brain is wired.


----------



## emydura (May 25, 2017)

Stone said:


> I'm doing a talk on Sophronitis at our club soon.
> I thought about whether I should call it ''The little red cattleyas'' as that might appease the more ''rigid'' members. But I'll be damned if I'm going to call them Cattleyas. I don't really care what the DNA sequencing says. Surely there is something missing in a system which lumps Soph coccinea with Cattleya warscewiczii! I don't care about evolutionary lines either.
> What does a wolf and a chiwawa have in common for all practical purposes?
> 
> Am I right or wrong?



I guess it depends on the type of talk you are giving. If you are giving an evolutionary biology talk then you would be wrong. But if it is just a general talk on the culture of a group of orchids then you can define the group however you please.


----------



## Stone (May 26, 2017)

Just culture, distribution, varieties etc. I don't know anything about genetics and I don't want to know anything about genetics!


----------



## Xilia (May 26, 2017)

Ozpaph said:


> I would title it "Cattleya coccinea, alias Sophronitis" or something like that, then say Sophronitis for the rest of the presentation


This. Mention the Cattleya synonymy but say Sophronitis from then on. Honestly people aren't really calling them "Cattleya coccinea" anyway. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Secundino (May 26, 2017)

I never said 'superficial similarities' nor nothing about colours, as colours don't have taxonomic value. Many generations of biologists have merged into the subtle yet recognisable morphology of the flowers (as most important characteristic) to determine parentage. The oldest is not the most accurate name. Then many orchids would be just _Epidendrums_ or _Cypripediums_. 
Unifying groups just because of modern genome techniques regardless of phenotypes would be as if Schlechter only looked at flowers - and not on growth!


----------



## emydura (May 27, 2017)

Genetics has contradicted with a lot of our previous understanding of the natural world. Up until recently it was assumed that falcons were more closely related to other raptors (such as eagles and hawks) than to other types of birds. But DNA has shown that falcons are in fact much more closely related to parrots. Convergent evolution has resulted in them evolving predatory traits that mirror those of other type of raptors. 

http://birdnote.org/blog/2015/02/parrots-and-falcons-—-long-lost-cousins


There was some interesting research released last year on the evolution of Australian cockroaches. It looked at two groups - wood feeding cockroaches and burrowing cockroaches. Wood feeding cockroaches arrived in Australia first when Australia was covered in forest. Australia has since dried out and is covered by large areas of arid regions inhabited by burrowing cockroaches. It was assumed that burrowing cockroaches evolved once from wood cockroaches and then radiated out to fill arid habitats. That is, wood coachroaches and burrowing cockroaches are separate taxonomic groups. DNA evidence has shown that burrowing cockroaches have evolved nine separate times from wood cockroaches. That is, there are many burrowing cockroaches that are more closely related to various wood cockroaches than they are to other burrowing cockroaches. So convergent evolution has resulted in all these borrowing cockroaches looking the same and having very similar biologies but all having evolved independently of each other. The interesting conclusion out of this is that rather than be the result of random, chance events, evolution is completely predictable. Species will evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental conditions. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/...-shed-light-on-evolutionary-processes/7173340

Therefore, just because something looks the same doesn't mean they have shared evolutionary histories. Convergent evolution is real not just a theory. 

I think the criticism of scientists by a few people is unfair. All they are doing are reporting the facts. I don't know what else they can be expected to do. The job of a taxonomist is to classify species in relation to their evolutionary history. As the couple of examples above demonstrate, using morphological traits can be flawed. Modern DNA techniques has enabled scientists to classify species with greater certainty.


----------



## Stone (May 28, 2017)

emydura said:


> .
> 
> 
> > Species will evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental conditions.
> ...


----------



## SlipperFan (May 28, 2017)

I think it is interesting that the Wiki-Cattleya Source lists Sophronitis: http://cattleya.wikidot.com/sophronotis-species


----------



## Tom-DE (May 29, 2017)

They are closely related to Cattleya but I will still call them Sophronitis.


----------



## PaphMadMan (May 29, 2017)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------

