# Any non-aggressive folks interested in discussing taxonomy?



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

*Hi there:

Any non-aggressive folks interested in discussing taxonomy?

I've been away for a long time due to an extreme aggression aversion ...

Best wishes,

Vic Albert.
(Prof., Univ. Buffalo, Mexipedium guy)

*


----------



## kentuckiense (Feb 17, 2009)

Sure. I can't think of any good starter topics, though.


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 17, 2009)

count me in too.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm in!!! Get the ball rolling... 

-Ernie


----------



## Drorchid (Feb 17, 2009)

Yep, I am in...Just give us a topic...

Oh here is one: Where do you draw the line of calling something a variety of a species, and when do you call something a "new" species? Say if someone finds one plant in a shipment of a species that he got in, and it clearly looks different, but yet you can tell it is related to a known species (This happened when Jerry Fischer, got some Phrag. schlimii plants from Ecuador, one plant within the shipment was very different, and was described by Guido Braem as Phrag. fischeri). 

My question is: when do you give something that is clearly distinct, but yet related to a known species a different variety name of that species, or when would you give it a "new" species name?

I can think of many examples (Phrag. fischeri vs Phrag. schlimii, Phrag. dalessandroi vs Phrag. besseae, Phrag. exstaminodium vs. Phrag. popowii, Paph. viniferum vs Paph. callosum, Paph. hiepii and Paph jackii vs. Paph. malipoense, and the newest: Phragmipedium manzurii, should this be a separate species, or is it a variety of schlimii etc etc..)

Robert


----------



## Ron-NY (Feb 17, 2009)

Robert, 
Good starter question! 

IMHO (for what ever that is worth) similarity of DNA or morphology is the factors that determine if something is the same species or not. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into variety, subvariety, and form. This question on how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries. There has always been the "lumpers" and the "splitters". Traditionally, plants were placed into a different species based on observations of anatomical differences. Now, with the capability of DNA analysis, placing things into a distinct species should be easier but still not a perfect science.


----------



## slippertalker (Feb 17, 2009)

That's an interesting question which taxonomists even debate. As far as I can discern, it comes down to a matter of philosophy of relationships of plants rather than any prescribed laws of taxonomy. As Ron mentions, often it is a matter of lumping vs splitting or showing closely aligned species seperate or as subspecies. 

Science operates in an open ended manner and taxonomy follows this trend. There is always room for more information (DNA, field study, etc) in determining whether differences are just variation or a seperate entity. Lumping or splitting seems to be a parlor game that taxonomists use to amuse themselves and cause consternation from their colleagues, but is usually used in an honest manner as the facts evolve.


----------



## nikv (Feb 17, 2009)

I find these discussions to be fascinating, but I'm not a biologist or taxonomist, so I have nothing to offer. But I'll eagerly watch this discussion from the sidelines.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

*Well, for starters, I am definitely in favor of checking relationships of particular plant individuals at the DNA level. When I say individuals, I really do mean individual clones, since the extent of natural genetic variation within what looks 'the same' or similar could be rather low or rather high. Populations of plants are notorious in this aspect, and understanding individual variation within populations -- AND between them -- is very important in my view. In narrow endemics like most Paphs and Phrags, the situation of ALLOPATRY (geographically distinctness) often leads to both genetic and morphological divergence. Allopatric SPECIATION can occur if gene flow, e.g., is largely cut off between populations, leaving them to go their own way further still. This said, in plants, the definition of species is more clouded than simple lumping vs. splitting, because real reproductive isolation may not be enforced at all if 'species' come into contact. Although botanists have found many, many more examples of cryptic reproductive isolation through, e.g., partial fertility barriers than previously supposed, there are NOWHERE NEAR as many examples of gene flow between recognized species of animals -- vertebrates, say. Plants extend their promiscuousness by having the tendency to form polyploids along with hybridization events. Angiosperms go crazy with polyploidization, and it's surprising that so few natural slipper tetraploids have been identified. Polyploidy is a way out of any reproductive barrier between 'species' (or distinct populations of 'species') that might come into contact. 

Going on to the issue of when a new species, subspecies, or variety might be named, this does indeed involve quite a bit of hand waving. Some (like me) would like to see biodiversity given concrete description, and the best way to preserve the intent of describing biodiversity is at the species level, since species names NEVER DIE -- they can simply be ignored if one wants. So maybe it's A-OK to name a Phrag. dalessandroi and then have most of the world consider the plant Phrag. besseae var. or subspecies dalessandroi. I don't know which of the latter names have been validly published, or which are in most common use -- the fact remains that the Latin binomial Phrag. dalessandroi is always there as a formally described entity. Subsuming Phrag. dalessandroi into besseae is merely a decision you or I could make -- nobody can rid themselves of the existence of the name Phrag. dalessandroi since it was validly described. So use it if you like, or any other valid name that might apply to a given individual plant with features that fit.

As for Phrag. schlimii vs. fischeri vs. manzurii, I guess I'd support their DESCRIPTION as species in order to get the Latin binomial on record. Of course, one could validly describe manzurii as a variety of schlimii -- accept what you want -- the same packages of biodiversity are there even if one less 'species' is on the Phrag. list.

New species especially, but also new subspecies or hybrids, create a lot of excitement in the orchid world -- folks gotta have 'em. So, any new names create markets, no matter how small the morphological differences.

Many examples of new species are dead clear -- like when Phrag. besseae or Paph. malipoense were discovered. But then the subtlties creeped in when natural variation led some to accept the species Phrag. dalessandroi and Phrag. jackii. Well, the latter two are different from the former 2, and do appear to form distinct populations, and are probably a little distinct at the DNA level. I'm glad that Phrag. dalessandroi and Paph. jackii exist as names recognizing diversity, but it just doesn't matter taxonomically if they are referred to as varieties. If one is interested in various aspects of evolutionary biology beyond taxonomy, such as population genetics, pollination interactions, or ecology, one might care more than I would.

These are my 2 cents -- rambling a bit, sorry for that. And I may change my mind on some things I wrote!

All best,

Vic.

*


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

Is DNA review part of taxonomy?


----------



## john mickel (Feb 17, 2009)

*Here we go-*

Now if you wake up Lance Birk '


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

NYEric said:


> Is DNA review part of taxonomy?



*No, taxonomy need not include anything about DNA. It can come purely from morphological considerations. Sometimes DNA can be helpful in decisions, however, as I already alluded to.

For the record:

Nomenclature = the process and act of erecting names through a set of rules recognized for all plants

Taxonomy = the practice of creating a classification from validly published names

So, nomeclaturally speaking, Paph. jackii exists, and so does Paph. malipoense var. jackii. Taxonomically speaking, taxonomist A can recognize the species, and B the variety, while referring to exactly the same plant specimen! Classifications exist in flux, though we would like to try to keep them stable. Synonymizing one species under another doesn't change the nomenclatural fact that the first name will persist. So Phrag dallesandroi will always exist, even if taxonomist B never lists it, or even Phrag. besseae var. dallesandroi. So long as the species names are validly published...*


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> No, taxonomy need not include anything about DNA. It can come purely from morphological considerations. Sometimes DNA can be helpful in decisions, however, as I already alluded to.


That's what I thought. Unfortunately, this makes it subjective when someone decides that a plant 'looks' different enough from another to be described as a different variety or species.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

NYEric said:


> That's what I thought. Unfortunately, this makes it subjective when someone decides that a plant 'looks' different enough from another to be described as a different variety or species.



*True enough, there is this subjectivity. But decisions can be more or less informed. Very careful morphological, ecological, and other examinations, not to mention DNA work, can make for better descriptive work*


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

Then DNA work should be required as that's the only examination that's not transferable. Unfortunately, there may be only one plant to sample.


----------



## slippertalker (Feb 17, 2009)

DNA studies have only confused the data depending on the focus. For good examples of rushing to judgement based on DNA, look at the recent myriad of changes with the Cattleya alliance and also the recent inclusion of Odontoglossum into Oncidium. There is no doubt that these are closely aligned species but basing them on DNA versus morphology which is traditional has cause much consternation. One would hope for clarification, but instead it has muddied the waters.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

You prefer lumping, it's easier but not accurate. I don't like all the changes but it aided in separating the pleurothallids which were lumped together even though they are anatomically now distinct.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Again, DNA can only be one factor -- 

Still, I believe in the principle of monophyletic classification -- genera should only be recognized if they have unique origins on phylogenetic trees; if they originate in many places, genera need renaming. Sometimes trees show large genera contain some smaller ones; then the large genera are non-monophyletic, and new classification is required to recognize only monophyletic genera. Remember, proper nomenclature must be available or made to make transfers of species or to erect new genera.

Monophyly is important to me because it is an evolutionarily sound principle, and because it leads to the most predictive classifications when/if new species are discovered. In other words, monophyletic genera can be defined by suites of unique characters, instead of sets of characters that must exclude some others. My 3 cents.

BW,

Vic.


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 17, 2009)

Just a clarification, DNA analysis has nothing to do with taxonomy but with systematics and phylogenia... in systematics teh relationship between species (or other groups) is studied and DNA provided a bir support to it. Taxonomy is a more traditional science based mainly on morphological characters... even though, it has some limitations, like using the correct markers, etc...

now, where to put the limits between species, sub-species, variety and so on... it depends ONLY on the taxonomist making the description! 

a last note: as for my understanding the newest "re-unification" of Odontoglossum and Oncidium (and many other genera) was based not on DNA analysis... I have read it was made based on pollinators (need to confirm this, because even though I read it on a source I normally trust, this sounds so ridiculous that I can hardly believe its true!)


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> Just a clarification, DNA analysis has nothing to do with taxonomy but with systematics and phylogenia...



No, DNA does have to do with phylogenetics, and can inform taxonomy. Systematics is a word that has come to mean different things to different people, sometimes either phylogenetics or taxonomy, or even both.



> in systematics teh relationship between species (or other groups) is studied and DNA provided a bir support to it. Taxonomy is a more traditional science based mainly on morphological characters... even though, it has some limitations, like using the correct markers, etc...



Again, taxonomy can use DNA evidence (= phylogenetics, population genetics) to help support classifications (= taxonomies).



> now, where to put the limits between species, sub-species, variety and so on... it depends ONLY on the taxonomist making the description!



Quite so! So long as validly published names are used within the valid taxonomic hierarchy. 



> a last note: as for my understanding the newest "re-unification" of Odontoglossum and Oncidium (and many other genera) was based not on DNA analysis... I have read it was made based on pollinators (need to confirm this, because even though I read it on a source I normally trust, this sounds so ridiculous that I can hardly believe its true!)



Don't know about this -- I am totally slipper-interested!

Best,

Vic.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> (need to confirm this, because even though I read it on a source I normally trust, this sounds so ridiculous that I can hardly believe its true!)



It comes from a taxonomist, that's why you should believe it! :evil: oke: 
The devil made me do it!


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 17, 2009)

I do not think any serious taxonomist (sorry if I offend anybody here!) would use pollinators to support this...


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 17, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> No, DNA does have to do with phylogenetics, and can inform taxonomy. Systematics is a word that has come to mean different things to different people, sometimes either phylogenetics or taxonomy, or even both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL sorry, I also re-read my post and realized it was confusely written  what I wanted to say is that taxonomy is based mainly on morphologiocal characters, and of course DNA evidence can be use as a support, however it is not the standard... Phylogenetics and molecular systematics are normally the ones using DNA evidence to support relationship between different taxas..


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

NYEric said:


> Is DNA review part of taxonomy?



Oh, by all means YES. Indirectly that is. Most taxonomists these days are also phylogenetic systematists, so they name stuff based on relationships, and molecules (if chosen properly!) are a valuable tool in this field. 

-Ernie


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> I do not think any serious taxonomist (sorry if I offend anybody here!) would use pollinators to support this...



I respectfully disagree! Pollinator relationships and biogeography are totally in tune with taxonomy via the phylogenetic systematic route. They can be very useful characters in fact. 

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

I agree, you should use all the tools available. That way you don't call a sport a species!


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

Oooo. I'm loving this. 

Doc Robert: I personally think "splitting" at the species level is the way to go with orchids. Why? Because it will be reflected in the hybrid registration. This has a major impact on the HOBBY and ECONOMY of orchids. Consider Paph glaucophyllum and moquettianum. They breed VERY different. As a consumer, I like to understand the parentage of a cross I buy, and by now recognizing there two taxa at the species rank, I can get a load of info simply from the grex name. Prior to this recognition, you had to guess which version was used. Split away! At the higher levels, though, I sorta like the massive genus approach (ie a broad Cattleya genus versus Catts, Laelia, Schombrugkia, Sophronitis...). 

-Ernie


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> LOL sorry, I also re-read my post and realized it was confusely written  what I wanted to say is that taxonomy is based mainly on morphologiocal characters, and of course DNA evidence can be use as a support, however it is not the standard... Phylogenetics and molecular systematics are normally the ones using DNA evidence to support relationship between different taxas..



Sorry, Ramon, not to pick on you, but again, I respectfully disaggree. Phylogenetic systematists use morphological, meristic, molecular, and biogeographical data. One is not precluded by the other. 

-Ernie


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

*Allopatric speciation is geographically-center notion of segregation into distinct entities; ecologically induced speciation can occur in near sympatry if different, closely-related organisms inhabit different niches within a biome. For example, species that form as forest-floor specialists versus light-gap/edge specialists. These specializations can involve different light, nutrient, and water regimes, not to mention different pollinator preferences.*


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Check out the PDF of my old paper on Mexipedium at its Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexipedium) -- Mark Chase and I used morphological characters and a supporting DNA-based phylogeny to segregate Mex from Phrag.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> LOL sorry, I also re-read my post and realized it was confusely written  what I wanted to say is that taxonomy is based mainly on morphologiocal characters, and of course DNA evidence can be use as a support, however it is not the standard... Phylogenetics and molecular systematics are normally the ones using DNA evidence to support relationship between different taxas..



To understand the process a little, in a nutshell and the order is sometimes mixed a little, but...

A scientist is presented with a handful of taxa. He/she uses characters (morphology, mersitic, molecular, biogeographical...) to determine their relationships. From the relationships, taxonomy is derived (or changed). To help folks understand what defines the taxa, easy to see traits (morphology) are used to tell others a quick way to tell who is who. It's silly to tell someone that paph. rothschildianum differs from sanderianum by a huge segment of base changes between positions X and Y on gene Z when you can simply say "Sandy has long petals". So you never really "see" molecular data in taxonomic keys or diagnoses for practical purposes, but it has certainly pervaded the science. 

-Ernie


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I respectfully disagree! Pollinator relationships and biogeography are totally in tune with taxonomy via the phylogenetic systematic route. They can be very useful characters in fact.
> 
> -Ernie



I agree that pollinators and biogeography are generally in tune with taxonomy, however... there is strong evidence that Odontoglossum and Oncidium are different genus, that's where I say that the similar pollinator cannot be used as an important character to bring these two genera together again! and that's what I was talking about...  on the other hand, as I said, I need to verify the source where I read that, because... welll we would start the discussion again


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Sorry, Ramon, not to pick on you, but again, I respectfully disaggree. Phylogenetic systematists use morphological, meristic, molecular, and biogeographical data. One is not precluded by the other.
> 
> -Ernie



and I agree with you, but molecular systematic (and that was my sentence) use only molecular evidence...


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> It's silly to tell someone that paph. rothschildianum differs from sanderianum by a huge segment of base changes between positions X and Y on gene Z when you can simply say "Sandy has long petals".



The segment of bases can be very helpful for IDing out-of-bloom when the marker has been found to be consistent within an entity. 

Such use of markers, or 'barcodes', should not be mistaken for a taxonomy -- consistent DNA markers only point you to an entity that has a particular nomenclatural status in a classification.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2009)

Ooooooh, my head is spinning!


----------



## Rick (Feb 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I respectfully disagree! Pollinator relationships and biogeography are totally in tune with taxonomy via the phylogenetic systematic route. They can be very useful characters in fact.
> 
> -Ernie



To expound on this: The pollinator relationships and biogeography (both space and time) are critical to understanding the genetic isolation of a particular plant species.

As noted in the GH you can cross a huge array of orchid genera and produce viable offspring. Subsequently if taxonomy is based on visual characters and DNA you end up either generating gobs of new species or proving that the present (on paper) species boundaries are worthless.


----------



## silence882 (Feb 17, 2009)

What happens when a 'species' occupies a large geographical area and shows significant variation within that area? What criteria are sufficient to draw lines between varieties and species? Do these criteria vary depending on the species that is being considered?

For example, Paph. callosum can be found over a large area of mainland southeast Asia. It has a number of described varieties (some of which were described as distinct species) and overlaps with the habitat of Paph. barbatum. I think a convincing argument could be made that Paph. callosum and Paph. barbatum represent a single species with an extremely wide spectrum of variation. What criteria should be used to separate different species/varieties within this complex?

--Stephen


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Widespread 'species' are a difficult issue -- for me, diagnosis is the key: if you can't provide a diagnostic characteristic to tell the difference between entities, then you have trouble grouping the entities under one name.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> The segment of bases can be very helpful for IDing out-of-bloom when the marker has been found to be consistent within an entity.
> 
> Such use of markers, or 'barcodes', should not be mistaken for a taxonomy -- consistent DNA markers only point you to an entity that has a particular nomenclatural status in a classification.



I'm with ya, but again, there is no cheap dipstick test that would enable the average Joe to say, "yep there's that marker, thus this is species A". So, when a multi-taxon diagnosis and dichotomous key is published, the author uses things we can see and touch. So I think the fact that molecules might have been used in the sciences gets lost. 

-Ernie


----------



## Ernie (Feb 17, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> Check out the PDF of my old paper on Mexipedium at its Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexipedium) -- Mark Chase and I used morphological characters and a supporting DNA-based phylogeny to segregate Mex from Phrag.



Ah, a parsimony guy. I guess that means I can still talk to you.  Any likelihood folks out there???  Just kidding, I think both have their utility when used properly. But if you don't know enough going in, parsimony is usually safer. (Can of worms, open up...)

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Feb 18, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> I agree that pollinators and biogeography are generally in tune with taxonomy, however... there is strong evidence that Odontoglossum and Oncidium are different genus, that's where I say that the similar pollinator cannot be used as an important character to bring these two genera together again! and that's what I was talking about...  on the other hand, as I said, I need to verify the source where I read that, because... welll we would start the discussion again



Sharing a "similar" pollinator is generally not good enough to separate species or genera. The common honey bee pollinates a wide array of plant species and genera (and correctly these various genera of plants are not lumped together). Too use the pollinator argument you also need the space and time component of the pollination act coupled with the specific pollinator in question (not just gross groupings such as "flies" or "bees").

On the other hand, is the split between genera such as Odontoglossum and Oncidium based on flower characteristics or DNA so completely arbitrary, that general fly vs.bee pollination strategies can be used as a "coin flipper" for separating or grouping at the genus level?


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 18, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Ah, a parsimony guy. I guess that means I can still talk to you.  Any likelihood folks out there???  Just kidding, I think both have their utility when used properly. But if you don't know enough going in, parsimony is usually safer. (Can of worms, open up...)
> 
> -Ernie



I have certainly done many parsimony analyses, and likelihood too -- but I have primarily been a plant developmental genomics scientist for a number of years.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 18, 2009)

*Any other fun taxonomy topics out there??*


----------



## nikv (Feb 18, 2009)

^ ^
I'll toss out a topic. Why was Laelia purpurata reclassified as a Sophronitis? Do they really think they belong in the same genus?

Have at it guys and gals.


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 18, 2009)

ok, another topic which is always going around my head since long ago... the only example I know very well is in Catasetum, so here I go.

First an scenario with Paphiopedilum: 

paph. bellatulum x niveum = Paph. Psyche
Ppah. Psyche x belletulum = Paph. Helice

now back to Ctsm.

Catasetum pileatum and Ctsm. macrocarpum are sympatric in a certain area of thier distribution. In this part, hybridization between both species is quite common, and the results is Ctsm. xtapiriceps (same cross, but human made, is called Ctsm. Splendens). It is even accepted that this cross is better adapted to the local environment as both parents. 

Ctsm. xtapiriceps, is very variable and we find plants very close to Ctsm. pileatum and plants very close to Ctsm. macrocarpum, and everything in between. Ctsm. Splendens, is more homogeneus and resemble more Ctsm. pileatum (let's put it more on the "Ctsm. pileatum" extrem of the morphological range of Ctsm. xtapiriceps). So, it is also discussed that the Ctsm. xtapiriceps on the "Ctsm. macrocarpum" are back crosses with this parent (actually, I think there is a huge crossing, back crossing, cross crossing, between all of them here).

Then we have Cts. pileatum with red spots, or completelly red (let's stay with it as Ctsm. pileatum var imperiale, in order to keep thing easier), and it is widely accepted that the red pigments come from hybridization with Ctsm. macrocarpum.

If an artificial back cross (see paphiopedilum example) is given a different name, why back crosses in nature keep the same name as the primary hybrid? I know, it is very complex to provide a name to all forms found, and actually the question should be more, why the artificial back crosses, do not keep the same name as the primary hybrids :evil:

Then, assuming, we accept back crosses keep the same name in nature... Why the Ctsm. pileatum with red spots or completely red (accepted to be back back back crosses with Ctsm. macrocarpum) are not considered another variation of Ctsm. xtapiriceps? In some cases going to the extrem, that instead of keeping the name Ctsm. xtapiriceps, the plant is even considered (by some! like RHS) as a new species: Ctsm. imperiale...

P.S.- I do not know any (for me) satisfactory answer to this...


----------



## Ernie (Feb 18, 2009)

Rick said:


> Sharing a "similar" pollinator is generally not good enough to separate species or genera. The common honey bee pollinates a wide array of plant species and genera (and correctly these various genera of plants are not lumped together). Too use the pollinator argument you also need the space and time component of the pollination act coupled with the specific pollinator in question (not just gross groupings such as "flies" or "bees").
> 
> On the other hand, is the split between genera such as Odontoglossum and Oncidium based on flower characteristics or DNA so completely arbitrary, that general fly vs.bee pollination strategies can be used as a "coin flipper" for separating or grouping at the genus level?



Yep, as pollinator specificity becomes more specific approaching exclusivity (silly for the pollinator?), the usefulness of the character becomes more and more useful at lower taxonomic ranks. 

-Ernie


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 18, 2009)

Hi there:

Laelia purpurata was reclassified as a Sophronitis since the genus Laelia did NOT turn out to be a monophyletic genus upon DNA phylogenetic analysis. See http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs/2008-vandenberg.pdf, fig. 6, p. 109. You'll see there that Laelia species are found in several places in the phylogenetic tree, rendering the genus evolutionarily unnatural. One can suppose that some morphological traits led the old descriptors to classify all these as Laelia, but what happens more often than not in cases like these, it turns out that these 'defining' traits are actually shared, ancestral traits. So, to preserve monophyly in the circumscription of genera in the Cattleya alliance, Laelia purpurata and other Brazilian Laelias were transferred to Sophronitis. This was necessary (if one wants to preserve monophyly) because the TYPE species of Laelia turned up elsewhere in the tree -- and where it turned up, it and related species there needed to be kept as Laelia. Summary: these taxonomic changes were made to preserve information about evolutionary relationships, in this case, supported by DNA (at least).

Hope this helps.

Of course, some of you might say that the characteristics are more important than a DNA tree -- but I for one want my genera to reflect evolutionary relationships, and DNA phylogenetic techniques address such relationships in a rather objective manner.

As I have argued elsewhere, in any case, it is the species name that is ALWAYS there (if it was validly published); genera an be viewed as merely 'packets' of information that group together species that should be linked because of shared common ancestry. Again, the species is the primary unit of diversity. So whatever Laelia purpurata became as a Sophronitis doesn't affect the fact that an entity was considered distinct at some point and described as this species.

Best wishes,

Vic.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 18, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> ok, another topic which is always going around my head since long ago... the only example I know very well is in Catasetum, so here I go.
> 
> First an scenario with Paphiopedilum:
> 
> ...



Interesting. I'd say the Catasetum back cross should have a new hybrid name (even if a "small x", natural hybrid name). I'm stumped, but don't know the background. 

-Ernie


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 18, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> Then, assuming, we accept back crosses keep the same name in nature... Why the Ctsm. pileatum with red spots or completely red (accepted to be back back back crosses with Ctsm. macrocarpum) are not considered another variation of Ctsm. xtapiriceps? In some cases going to the extrem, that instead of keeping the name Ctsm. xtapiriceps, the plant is even considered (by some! like RHS) as a new species: Ctsm. imperiale...



Well if Catasetum x tapiriceps was validly described, and described as the primary hybrid equal to the RHS name, then C. x tapiriceps is the correct name. The RHS name is simply for horticultural use.

As for tweezing out the evolutionary/taxonomic issues you mention, this sounds completely like a population genetic question that would require considerable sampling of genetic variation in nature.

Note still that natural hybrids can certainly be described as species if the botanical author considers them stable enough across observed variation to provide a Latin diagnosis and/or description. Again, another case of 'you choose'.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 18, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> Note still that natural hybrids can certainly be described as species if the botanical author considers them stable enough across observed variation to provide a Latin diagnosis and/or description. Again, another case of 'you choose'.



A great example here is Paph. wenshanense AKA Paph. x conco-bellatulum. However, I don't know if 'hybrid' status for this entity was ever established. If we assume it is a hybrid, you could certainly accept the species name if you believe that the entity is stable in the key characters used for its description.


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 18, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> Well if Catasetum x tapiriceps was validly described, and described as the primary hybrid equal to the RHS name, then C. x tapiriceps is the correct name. The RHS name is simply for horticultural use.
> 
> As for tweezing out the evolutionary/taxonomic issues you mention, this sounds completely like a population genetic question that would require considerable sampling of genetic variation in nature.
> 
> Note still that natural hybrids can certainly be described as species if the botanical author considers them stable enough across observed variation to provide a Latin diagnosis and/or description. Again, another case of 'you choose'.


VAAlbert, this is indeed a very interesting example in population genetic and "delimitation" of species... As. Catasetum pileatum var. imperiale, it has been validly described both as Var. imperiale and as Ctsm. imperiale (I think it has never been considered as equivalent to xtapiriceps, even though it is accepted to have inherited the red from macrocarpum) This variety is found normally in a very small region in Venezuela, where a red variant form of macrocarpum is also present.

One of the reasons I like this example so much (independently of the nomenclature issue) is because it shows how "artificial" the concept of species can be in some cases. Catasetum is a Genus with several species, which (my opinion!) are not so apart genetically from each other. (here are several cases as the one explained with xtapiriceps, but including other species.

The way I see it (and the way I treat my plants) is that the extrems, e.g a white Ctsm. pileatum and a Ctsm. macrocarpum with a very well defined trident, are the ones to be considered as species, and everything else in between should be considered as "Hybrid XXX Complex" (giving a single name to each cross, and back cross, and crossed bac back cross, and so on, would be imposible in tehse cases). Only, if you have a plant getting out this rangem and living where non of the other components of the colex is present, this should be considered as a variety or forma, e.g. a hypothetical Ctsm. pileatum with red petal and green albellum found where there is no other Ctsm species found.

I recall, I have read somewhere that there is a similar case with Paphiopedilum (I think Paph. wenshanense / Paph Conco-bellatulum), but am not sure where I read that.


----------



## Kavanaru (Feb 18, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> A great example here is Paph. wenshanense AKA Paph. x conco-bellatulum. However, I don't know if 'hybrid' status for this entity was ever established. If we assume it is a hybrid, you could certainly accept the species name if you believe that the entity is stable in the key characters used for its description.



oops... I had not seen this before writting the previous message 

I think that what I read is that (again RHS) accepts wenshanense for teh natural hybrid (including crosses, back crosses and back back crosses, but Conco-bellatulum for the artificial primary hybrid... orsomething like that.. as I said, I have this in my mind, but cannot recall where I read that...


----------



## Drorchid (Feb 18, 2009)

Interesting posts and points, sorry I did not have too much time to respond.

But to put some input in Ramon's question regarding Natural Hybrids. Yes, it is true (and does not always make sense), but when you find a population of plants in the wild that is considered a natural hybrid , it is probably never, or at least seldom a first generation natural hybrid (Species A x Species B). In most cases we are dealing with a hybrid swarm, so there can be cross pollination going on between plants that are natural hybrids, and cross pollination between the natural hybrid and either original species parent, so you get plants within your natural hybrid swarm that are not 50/50 species A and species B. All plants within the natural Hybrid swarm however get the same name. I think it will get too complicated to determine what the exact genetic makeup of plants is within a hybrid swarm and give each plant with a different genetic makeup a different name; It makes more sense when you find a population of plants that you know is of hybrid origin between 2 species to give them all the same natural hybrid name. 

It is true if you would recreate those plants by artificial pollination, each cross will get a different name. For instance say Paph. wenshanense for the point of this debate is considered the natural hybrid between Paph. concolor and Paph. bellatulum (even though there is some debate if this is really the case or not):

Man Made Hybrids:
Paph. concolor x Paph. bellatulum = Paph. Conco-bellatulum
Paph. Conco-bellatulum x bellatulum = Paph. Concon Bell
Paph. Conco-bellatulum x concolor = Paph. Hsinying Concon

In nature/Wild:
Paph. concolor x Paph. bellatulum = Paph. wenshanense
Paph. wenshanense x bellatulum = Paph. wenshanense
Paph. wenshanense x concolor = Paph. wenshanense

This is why when you look at different plants of Paph. wenshanense, some resemble more Paph. concolor, while others resemble more Paph. bellatulum.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Feb 18, 2009)

Drorchid said:


> Man Made Hybrids:
> Paph. concolor x Paph. bellatulum = Paph. Conco-bellatulum
> Paph. Conco-bellatulum x bellatulum = Paph. Concon Bell
> Paph. Conco-bellatulum x concolor = Paph. Hsinying Concon
> ...


Thanx
Clear as mud! :rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Feb 18, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Yep, as pollinator specificity becomes more specific approaching exclusivity (silly for the pollinator?), the usefulness of the character becomes more and more useful at lower taxonomic ranks.
> 
> -Ernie



In many orchid cases the increase in pollinator exclusivity does not mean exclusivity of the reproductive requirements of the pollinator. For instance the co opting of various species of hover flies to pollinate paph species doesn't have any impact on the reproductive isolation of a given hover fly species since the fly doesn't depend on the paph for its reproductive needs. It's getting tricked to lay its eggs on a fake aphid colony (presumed) which has nothing to do with the various ecological forces that isolate this particular hover fly species, shaping it into it's own form of reproductive isolation.

In short I think the orchid pollinatees evolve to take advantage of the available insect pollinators rather than a co-evolution shaping both organisms to greater specificity.

It may be a curious hypothesis to predict that you might find an increase in genetic barriers (fertility issues) for plant species that have non specific pollinators than for plant species that have very specific pollinators.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 18, 2009)

Rick said:


> In many orchid cases the increase in pollinator exclusivity does not mean exclusivity of the reproductive requirements of the pollinator. For instance the co opting of various species of hover flies to pollinate paph species doesn't have any impact on the reproductive isolation of a given hover fly species since the fly doesn't depend on the paph for its reproductive needs. It's getting tricked to lay its eggs on a fake aphid colony (presumed) which has nothing to do with the various ecological forces that isolate this particular hover fly species, shaping it into it's own form of reproductive isolation.
> 
> In short I think the orchid pollinatees evolve to take advantage of the available insect pollinators rather than a co-evolution shaping both organisms to greater specificity.
> 
> It may be a curious hypothesis to predict that you might find an increase in genetic barriers (fertility issues) for plant species that have non specific pollinators than for plant species that have very specific pollinators.



Cool. Makes sense. 

-Ernie


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 20, 2009)

Rick said:


> In short I think the orchid pollinatees evolve to take advantage of the available insect pollinators rather than a co-evolution shaping both organisms to greater specificity.



The evolution of (relatively nonspecific) fly pollination from within specialized bee pollination is known from the euphorb _Dalechampia_:

Title:	
Switch from specialized to generalized pollination
Authors:	
Armbruster, W. Scott; Baldwin, Bruce G.
Publication:	
Nature, Volume 394, Issue 6694, pp. 632 (1998). (Nature Homepage)
Publication Date:	
08/1998
Origin:	
NATURE
Abstract Copyright:	
(c) 1998: Nature
DOI:	
10.1038/29210
Bibliographic Code:	
1998Natur.394..632A
Abstract
The once prevalent view that the evolution of extreme ecological specialization is accompanied by a loss of potential for adapting to new conditions, and thus is irreversible, has been challenged by several recent examples,,. However, we know of no modern phylogenetic studies showing reversal in pollination relationships from extreme specialization to generalization, although such reversals are theoretically expected,. Here we present molecular phylogenetic evidence for an evolutionary shift in Dalechampia (Euphorbiaceae) vines from a highly specialized relationship (pollination by one or a few animal species,) with resin-collecting bees to generalized pollination by a variety of pollen-feeding insects. This shift was associated with dispersal from Africa to Madagascar, where the specific resin-collecting pollinators are absent. These results show that plants dispersing beyond the range of their specific pollinators may succeed by evolving more generalized pollination systems. 

In slipper orchids, phylogenetic relationships tell us that fly pollination has evolved from bee pollination at minimum three times, within Paphs (Barbata, e.g.), Phrags (longifolium, etc.), and Cyps (margaritaceum, etc.). The commode-lipped species have the ancestral morphology, i.e., Selenipedium, Cyp. irapeanum (etc.), Phrag. schlimii, Mexipedium, Paph. delenatii (etc.) -- which at the 'bottoms' of their subtrees in the family tree.

Best wishes,

Vic.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 20, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> ... which



.. lie ...



> at the 'bottoms' of their subtrees in the family tree.


----------



## Rick (Feb 20, 2009)

Not sure of the definition of "non-specific".?

As such, flies are not going to orchids for the purpose of pollinating them. So I guess they are not specifically pollinators (i.e. they are not specifically in the business of pollinating flowers for a living).

However, there are thousands of species of flies (probably many more species than bees)with differing shapes, sizes, life histories, feeding strategies.....so the shift to "flies" does not automatically mean a shift to generalized pollinators. For instance rothchildianum is apparently pollinated by hover flies (species not known to me). Furthermore it appears to be pollinated by the female rather than male that tries to lay its eggs amidst the "aphid mimic". The size of the roth flower compared to other sympatric paph species is pretty big, so would probably need a good size hover fly to get the pollinia placed properly. The same sized hover fly would probably get stuck in the sympatrics if they weren't separated temporarily (different blooming seasons).

It is possible that supardii, stonei, and kolopakingii flowers could mechanically be pollinated by the same species. But then you need to look at normal home ranges of the hover flies which I suspect are rather small in comparison to many bee species.

I believe you sent me the paper on pollination of Cyp species in southern China (euglosine bee pollinated), and I believe there were 7 some odd bee species in question, but although all 7 could be attracted by any of the Cyp species, the sizes of the bees was different enough to restrict the successful pollination events to only a couple per Cyp species.


----------



## kentuckiense (Feb 21, 2009)

Rick said:


> The size of the roth flower compared to other sympatric paph species is pretty big, so would probably need a good size hover fly to get the pollinia placed properly. The same sized hover fly would probably get stuck in the sympatrics if they weren't separated temporarily (different blooming seasons).



Well, any idea of the exit orifice dimensions? Not being sarcastic here. Flower size is irrelevant, exit orifice size (and perhaps distance beneath stigma) is what really matters.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 21, 2009)

Rick said:


> However, there are thousands of species of flies (probably many more species than bees)with differing shapes, sizes, life histories, feeding strategies.....so the shift to "flies" does not automatically mean a shift to generalized pollinators.



I do understand what you mean about the flies. It's just in pollination ecology, people talk about bees as being more intelligent and choosy than flies in terms of the flowers they visit. The euglossine bees can also be generalists, however, in the _sense _that they can 'capture' pollinia of multiple orchid species on the same fly, stuck however on different parts of their body, due to the specific morphologies/anatomies of different species.

I think the central issue is that the Paph species are largely allopatric in distribution, and so different fly species are not much involved in 'choices', other than what can actually fit through the floral 'devices' to effect pollination. 'Sophisticated' attracting systems such as the distinct staminodia of Paph rothschildianum may well separate its pollination from other species that are more-or-less sympatric, however (such as P. dayanum; though these plants aren't really sympatric in the sense that they grow _directly _next to P. rothschildianum populations!). I think, though, that if you look at most Paphs, they exist in substantial allopatry, and the fly species probably don't make much of a difference other than mechanical possibility due to their size and shape, etc.

But, I natter on, and probably contradict myself in places above...

Just my 2 cents again.

Specificity seems to be a matter of defition.

All best,

vic.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 21, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> ...in the _sense _that they can 'capture' pollinia of multiple orchid species on the same fly, ...



... not fly, bee


----------



## kentuckiense (Feb 21, 2009)

kentuckiense said:


> Well, any idea of the exit orifice dimensions? Not being sarcastic here. Flower size is irrelevant, exit orifice size (and perhaps distance beneath stigma) is what really matters.



I should add a caveat. I would bet there is a correlation between flower size and exit orifice dimensions.


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 22, 2009)

*A call for participitaion in research!*



kentuckiense said:


> I would bet there is a correlation between flower size and exit orifice dimensions.



This information should be readily compilable *if folks could start sending data* that could go into an Excel spreadsheet and subsequently graphed.

*I strongly encourage members of Slippertalk to contribute toward testing this interesting hypothesis!
*


----------



## kentuckiense (Feb 22, 2009)

VAAlbert said:


> This information should be readily compilable *if folks could start sending data* that could go into an Excel spreadsheet and subsequently graphed.
> 
> *I strongly encourage members of Slippertalk to contribute toward testing this interesting hypothesis!
> *



Alright, lets hammer out the methods. We want everyone to be doing this the same way. I think the hardest part will be figuring out how to judge "flower size."


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 22, 2009)

*Meanwhile, would be nice to start more discussion on taxonomy!

Vic.*


----------



## labskaus (Feb 23, 2009)

a strictly nomenclatural but non-slipper question:

Vandenberg transferred several ex Laelia/Sophronitis species into Cattleya based on yet unpublished new molecular data:van den Berg, C. 2008. New combinations in the genus Cattleya (Orchidaceae). Neodiversity 3: 3-12
Available from his homepage, http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/publications.html

My question: is this procedure of publishing new combinations in anticipation of new data (even though they are his own) in accordance with the Boanical Code? See Article 34.1 (b): http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm

As I understand the Code, Vandenbergs combinations may be not valid.

Best wishes, Carsten


----------



## VAAlbert (Feb 23, 2009)

He can in fact publish those combinations whenever he likes, since the code requires no particular result whatsoever for somebody to validly transfer a species from one genus to another. 

For example, I could easily claim that I have evidence that Phrag schlimii is a Mexipedium, and go ahead and make the transfer -- without any data shown.

To make it legal, all I'd have to do would be to make certain that the combination was published on paper and sent to X number of herbaria/libraries (can't remember the number). This is how those guys got Phrag kovachii out so fast: "special issue" of Selbyana.

So, for the case above, I'd merely need to get somebody to let me publish the following:

Mexipedium schlimii (Linden ex Rchb.f.) V.A. Albert, comb. nov.
Basionym: Cypripedium schlimii Linden ex Rchb.f.

I wouldn't need a diagnosis nor a description. The above is it. NOT EVEN mention that the plant is now considered a Phrag. That's because the TYPE SPECIES lies in the genus CYPRIPEDIUM, since Phrag schlimii was itself a later combination when Phrag was erected!! --> Phragmipedium schlimii (Linden ex Rchb.f.) Rolfe. In that case, Rolfe made the combination -- mine to Mex is indicated above...

best,

Vic.


----------



## VAAlbert (Mar 20, 2010)

*anybody interested in this sort of stuff anymore??*

anybody interested in this sort of stuff anymore??

Best,

Vic.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2010)

Yes. Very interesting, if somewhat confusing at times.


----------



## VAAlbert (Mar 20, 2010)

OK, that said, where to begin? 

V.


----------



## Ernie (Mar 20, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> OK, that said, where to begin?
> 
> V.



Um... you brought it up. Something is apparently on your mind. Get the ball rolling..

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (Mar 20, 2010)

If you don't need a proof to make a classification why is it adopted?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Mar 20, 2010)

NYEric said:


> If you don't need a proof to make a classification why is it adopted?



There is never any 'proof' and generally no formal 'adoption'. If persuasive evidence is presented within the existing rules the new classification will be accepted provisionally by prevailing opinion, until better evidence is presented. It will always be subject to change on the basis of new knowledge and interpretation, or new rules. There will never be one accepted taxonomy for all time - at best an enduring concensus. They call this process science.


----------



## Lanmark (Mar 21, 2010)

Fascinating stuff! Evolution never stops, so this thread should go on forever! I love reading and digesting this information. We have a lot of brillliant minds here!  I only wish I had more education in this area to be able to contribute something meaningful to the thread.

Carry on...


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Mar 21, 2010)

While we're at it on taxonomy....is Koopowitz the only one who consider's viniferum a valid species?


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2010)

NYEric said:


> If you don't need a proof to make a classification why is it adopted?



Job security for taxonomists:evil:


----------



## Ernie (Mar 21, 2010)

Rick said:


> Job security for taxonomists:evil:



No, you really have to be a systematic taxonomist to understand how they/we think. We?- I'm trained as a fish systematist, just don't "practice" for a living anymore. Names aren't made up just to publish stuff. Other than collecting specimens and maybe traveling to other museums, taxonomy is a pretty inexpensive science compared to many other disciplines (like the mucho costly pharma/bioengineering research I do now). So grants are usually geared to conservation/biodiversity. Systematists (most?) do their thing because they honestly can't help it- they want to know the truth and more searching leads to more knowledge leads to changes. New techniques give more areas to look... It's like a neurosis! I know it seems weird, but we're like the Rainmen (and women) of biology. Imagine living your life wanting to put name tags on everything- the sock drawer, your left and right shoes, the hangers in your closet. Really. I managed to dodge those tendencies long ago, but replaced it with systematic taxonomy and now managing a lab and our collection to redirect that energy a little more usefully. Shoot, at least plants sit still long enough to stick a name tag on them. Fish never stand still long enough! When a name changes or a new variety/form is created, it's hard for me to not change a tag- just like if someone swapped the tags for the left and right shoes. Make a little more sense? 

-Ernie


----------



## Leo Schordje (Mar 21, 2010)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> While we're at it on taxonomy....is Koopowitz the only one who consider's viniferum a valid species?



I have seen seedlings of selfings of callosum 'Sparkling Burgundy' which is the clone used by Stewarts Orchids & or Rex van Delden to make the first series of vinicolor Maudiae & other vini hybrids. These plants look like Paph callosum. This form of vinicolor breeds as a single Mendalian gene, and is dominant for expression. 

I have seen seedlings of a selfing of callosum 'JAC' which was the type specimen for the description of Paph viniferum. They do not look like a typical Paph callosum. The petals are encrusted with warts, and lots of hairs. The whole look was quite different than the 'Sparkling Burgundy' types. The vinicolor trait in the JAC line is recessive. In the hetrozygous state it gives the rather beautiful peacock flame types. It also passes on heavy warting in the petals. I think there is a good argument for calling a different species, but unless a origin is found and additional specimens are observed in nature, I really am not 100% sure if it is good as a species, or if it is really just a truely unusual mutant callosum. I do know I am fairly comfortable with the species viniferum name based on plant appearance, they really look different. Lack of field data is my only hesitation on the viniferum name.


----------



## Ernie (Mar 21, 2010)

Leo Schordje said:


> Lack of field data is my only hesitation on the viniferum name.



Much agreed. Lack of field data is the only reason I didn't author over two dozen descriptions of _Corydoras_ species because I got them as "contaminants" with other species. I have major issues with descriptions from "hobby" specimens. I get the idea of not actually publishing the location to prevent collection, but the plants should still be jungle. 

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Mar 22, 2010)

Ernie said:


> No, you really have to be a systematic taxonomist to understand how they/we think. We?- I'm trained as a fish systematist, just don't "practice" for a living anymore. Names aren't made up just to publish stuff. Other than collecting specimens and maybe traveling to other museums, taxonomy is a pretty inexpensive science compared to many other disciplines (like the mucho costly pharma/bioengineering research I do now). So grants are usually geared to conservation/biodiversity. Systematists (most?) do their thing because they honestly can't help it- they want to know the truth and more searching leads to more knowledge leads to changes. New techniques give more areas to look... It's like a neurosis! I know it seems weird, but we're like the Rainmen (and women) of biology. Imagine living your life wanting to put name tags on everything- the sock drawer, your left and right shoes, the hangers in your closet. Really. I managed to dodge those tendencies long ago, but replaced it with systematic taxonomy and now managing a lab and our collection to redirect that energy a little more usefully. Shoot, at least plants sit still long enough to stick a name tag on them. Fish never stand still long enough! When a name changes or a new variety/form is created, it's hard for me to not change a tag- just like if someone swapped the tags for the left and right shoes. Make a little more sense?
> 
> -Ernie


Actually it does Ernie, but I've also been in the lab/academia aspect of science for many years and saw a fair amount of systematic taxonomy dissertation projects to keep up with the publication quotas. I work in ecology and eco-toxicity now. Recently we had to justify (and possibly replicate) a toxic benchmark for a given species of freshwater clam (from Iowa). Clam taxonomy is as messy as every other organism taxonomy. Ultimately the EPA had accepted an archaic name for the species of clam that was tested in the mid 90's, but I must have spent 2 days literature search trying to figure out all the name changes to come up with a good guess at what species was actually tested (and used to justify discharge permit limits for the State of Iowa). The constant name tag swapping can really make it frustrating and hard to replicate work in other fields. So I got to get my digs in too.


----------



## Ernie (Mar 22, 2010)

Rick said:


> Actually it does Ernie, but I've also been in the lab/academia aspect of science for many years and saw a fair amount of systematic taxonomy dissertation projects to keep up with the publication quotas.



Fair enough, I suppose. But I never got that impression from the curators at the USNM or profs at GW or any of the fish folks at meetings I attended. There are plenty of ways to advance the science without publishing frivolously IMO. And a grad thesis project that is strictly taxonomic (i.e. revisionary or new descriptions) in nature is not usually a very good one (there are certainly exceptions). Surely it exists though. Good thoughts, Rick. 

-Ernie


----------



## VAAlbert (Mar 22, 2010)

I fully agree with the lack of field data issue on P. viniferum...


----------



## Ernie (Mar 22, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> I fully agree with the lack of field data issue on P. viniferum...



And dixlerianum... aka Paph. Raisin Pie.  

-Ernie


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 22, 2010)

Scientist should stop describing paphs without field data because people are making artificial hybrids. That is sort of embarrassing for the scientist...
Phragmipedium tetzlaffianum is one we don't have any data for yet!


----------



## Leo Schordje (Mar 22, 2010)

Ernie said:


> And dixlerianum... aka Paph. Raisin Pie.
> 
> -Ernie



:evil:


----------



## VAAlbert (Aug 29, 2010)

Is there anyone out there that feels Mexipedium xerophyticum should instead be known as Phragmipedium xerophyticum? Of course, Mex is covered by CITES Appendix I since the Phrag name is valid and a synonym.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 29, 2010)

Heck no!!! M x breeds with, like, nothing. If all those Cattleyas can intermingle with Laelias, Rhyncos, Soph, Brassia... and they are all _different_ genera, I see no reason two beasts that can't interbreed should be collapsed into one genus. Noway, never, ever. Not like my opinion is worth a damn in the grand scheme, but I feel strongly about this one.


----------



## SlipperKing (Aug 30, 2010)

I second that Ernie


----------



## Kavanaru (Aug 30, 2010)

SlipperKing said:


> I second that Ernie



me too!:clap:


----------



## VAAlbert (Aug 30, 2010)

...but rumors persist that there are seedlings with intermediate leaves...


----------



## PaphMadMan (Aug 30, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> Is there anyone out there that feels Mexipedium xerophyticum should instead be known as Phragmipedium xerophyticum? Of course, Mex is covered by CITES Appendix I since the Phrag name is valid and a synonym.



I think it is clear that xerophyticum is more closely related to Phrags than to anything else. It would presumably go alone into its own subgenus or section, so it would really be a distinction without a difference, as any simple lumper/splitter debate is. Species, Genus etc. is an organizational structure we try to impose on the real world. The relationships are real, but where to draw the lines we want to draw is subjective. 

Having said all that, I agree with what others have said about maintaining Mexipedium separate from Phragmipedium. It is convenient, logical, and a reasonable representation of the real relationship.


----------



## Kavanaru (Aug 30, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> ...but rumors persist that there are seedlings with intermediate leaves...



there are also rumors that Bigfoot walks on two legs, inhabits North America and has been seen near some cities/towns.. that does not make it a real Homo macropedulum sub. americanus  

Just kidding  what I actually mean is that rumors are just that: rumors, and you cannot justify any taxonomic change based on them...


as per similarities.. also not a good reason... many Epidendrum sspp have plants that look like Cattleyas and many others have flowers that look like mini versions of Cattleya flowers. However, they stay on their own genus... Also, Hornbill resemple Toucans, and they are kept in different Genus and even Families  similar examples could fill a whole book... 

as already mentioned, the fact that Mexypedium cannot breed with Phragmies, and also the plants structures (e.g. ovarium) looks different, then you have good reasons to think they are not the same Genus


----------



## Drorchid (Aug 30, 2010)

I think based on the morphology of the flowers, the leaves, the plant habit, where it grows, and its breeding habit (or lack of, as it will not make any viable plants that will produce flowers when crossed to a Phragmipedium), I would put it in its own Genus. I agree, it is probably the most related to Phragmipediums, but as the differences are so big, I think it is warranted for it to get its own genus. My guess is that early on in the evolution of Phragmipediums, this particular species split off early from the ancestal type, and that later on species within the genus what we called Phragmipedium were formed.

Robert


----------



## Drorchid (Aug 30, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> ...but rumors persist that there are seedlings with intermediate leaves...



What do you mean by that? we had a large population of Mexipedium growing here in the nursery, and I have sibbed and selfed a bunch of plants (and crossed them with Phragmipediums, with no success beyond little seedlings that formed in the lab and than crashed), but I have never seen much variation when it came to leaf type, they all looked like the "standard" Mexipedium leaf to me.

Robert


----------



## VAAlbert (Aug 30, 2010)

Hi Doc: I've only heard rumors... persistent ... but have seen nothing in the flesh. Indeed, sibbed and selfed plants are found quite frequently. Let's distinguish these carefully from 'Windy Hill' and 'Oaxaca' divisions so as to preserve the original from nature.


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 5, 2010)

BTW, Windy Hill and Oaxaca are definitely different -- I've had both in bloom this month. Plus the foliage is distinct.

Best,

V.


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 5, 2010)

gosh, I had fun here!

A NEW QUESTION FOR THE GANG:

Does anyone view *chromosomes* as important for slipper taxonomy, etc?

Vic.


----------



## Clark (Sep 5, 2010)

not until my book is published...


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 5, 2010)

We are working on Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) to study chromosomal evolutionary dynamics in the slippers -- very, very interesting so far! You get a lot more information than simple chromosome counts.

Check out this image:







The blue things are the chromosomes; the red (strong to strongish) and green sites are the main loci that code for genes that ultimatelt help make all proteins, and the dispersed red stuff indicates that some of that type has spread throughout the genome in an unexpected manner. Perhaps because this individual is a hybrid. Note also that there are THREE strong red blotches, but there should be an even number in a homozygote -- thus a heterozygote for this chromosomal trait.

Our work is on species, but clearly of interest for looking at hybrids as well. Implications can be many, and we are trying to sort things out as we speak...

Best,

Vic.


----------



## ohio-guy (Sep 5, 2010)

I only see two strong red blotches in this image, but very interesting never the less. How far along are you in your work?


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 5, 2010)

Sorry, my words were a little misleading --

The main loci are the 2 VERY STRONG red sites, and the 2 very strong green sites. Again, these are clusters of DNA that encode two different genes that are principal in eventually making all proteins.

By 3 red BLOTCHES, I meant the LESS STRONG red sites, of which there are three, and note that there are also 2 really weak sites (both less strong and weak sites kind of look doubled since they are on 2 chromosome arms each; the strong, strong sites are so strong that the arms are obscured). So the weak sites are homozygous, but the less-strong blotches are heterozygous. The main sites, which are VERY BRIGHT, are homozygous as well. 

We're actually rather far along with the Paphs, now working our way into the Phrags and a couple of Cyps. Again, the focus is species.

Regards,

Vic.


----------



## ohio-guy (Sep 6, 2010)

what do you think of differing chromosome counts as evidence 2 plants would be two different species? It seems to me I once read Phrag besseae and Phrag delassandroi had 2 different counts, which in my mind (if the counts were accurate/reproducible) would indicate 2 different species. Yet there is still a lot of discussion that they are just extremes of a population. do Chromosome numbers vary within a species in plants?


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 6, 2010)

Different chromosome numbers could be used as evidence for difference between species, but I'm afraid it isn't so easy. There have been reports of different chromosome numbers in Paph wardii, for example, 2n=41 or 2n=42.... and Paph venustum 2n=40, 41 or 42. Now one could claim that these numbers are identifying what could be "cryptic species" in wardii or venustum, or perhaps better stated, population polymorphism in these plants. I would go for the latter. If you have 2 populations of venustum, e.g., that are 40 and 42, then when they come into contact, some progeny of intraspecific mating will have 41. We see examples of FISH heterozygosity (remembering my figure) in SPECIES plants quite frequently, and this could just as easily be considered to result from crosses between different populations that are fixed for one chromosomal trait vs. the other. 

Hope this helps,

Vic.


----------



## VAAlbert (Sep 6, 2010)

*more o chromosomes*

Hi all:

See below some more shots of chromosomes, this time 2 species with their telomeres and telomere sequences lighting up. The top one is Paph moquttianum; the second id Paph dianthum. Telomeres are sequences that cap chromosomes to keep the ends from degrading. You'll note that there is one signal per chromosome arm in moquettianum (a little noise is visible = nonspecific staining, to be ignored), whereas there are massively hybridizing regions INSIDE chromosomes of dianthum, as well as the normal dots at the ends of the arms. We're working now on the significance of these differences, but I can tell you for sure that one thing is that chromosomal evolution in dianthum is currently more dynamic (not to say that moquettianum genomes weren't in the past -- almost had to have been since the chromosome number is higher than dianthum's, and when chromosomes split, they need more telomeres to cap their new chromosomes). 

moquettianum:







dianthum:


----------



## Drorchid (Sep 7, 2010)

Very Interesting, and thanks for posting those pics. I definitely believe Cytology is a very useful tool in Plant Taxonomy, it is also interesting to see what happens to chromosomes when you create hybrids, especially the more complex ones. For my Masters degree, I did some C-Banding techniques on Alstroemeria, and when you looked at the chromosomes of an unknown hybrid you could tell what the ancestral species where of that hybrid.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Sep 7, 2010)

Very interesting, in my clones you will need to repair the near sightedness, thank you.


----------



## Braem (Jul 9, 2011)

VAAlbert said:


> *Well, for starters, I am definitely in favor of checking relationships of particular plant individuals at the DNA level. When I say individuals, I really do mean individual clones, since the extent of natural genetic variation within what looks 'the same' or similar could be rather low or rather high. Populations of plants are notorious in this aspect, and understanding individual variation within populations -- AND between them -- is very important in my view. In narrow endemics like most Paphs and Phrags, the situation of ALLOPATRY (geographically distinctness) often leads to both genetic and morphological divergence. Allopatric SPECIATION can occur if gene flow, e.g., is largely cut off between populations, leaving them to go their own way further still. This said, in plants, the definition of species is more clouded than simple lumping vs. splitting, because real reproductive isolation may not be enforced at all if 'species' come into contact. Although botanists have found many, many more examples of cryptic reproductive isolation through, e.g., partial fertility barriers than previously supposed, there are NOWHERE NEAR as many examples of gene flow between recognized species of animals -- vertebrates, say. Plants extend their promiscuousness by having the tendency to form polyploids along with hybridization events. Angiosperms go crazy with polyploidization, and it's surprising that so few natural slipper tetraploids have been identified. Polyploidy is a way out of any reproductive barrier between 'species' (or distinct populations of 'species') that might come into contact.
> 
> Going on to the issue of when a new species, subspecies, or variety might be named, this does indeed involve quite a bit of hand waving. Some (like me) would like to see biodiversity given concrete description, and the best way to preserve the intent of describing biodiversity is at the species level, since species names NEVER DIE -- they can simply be ignored if one wants. So maybe it's A-OK to name a Phrag. dalessandroi and then have most of the world consider the plant Phrag. besseae var. or subspecies dalessandroi. I don't know which of the latter names have been validly published, or which are in most common use -- the fact remains that the Latin binomial Phrag. dalessandroi is always there as a formally described entity. Subsuming Phrag. dalessandroi into besseae is merely a decision you or I could make -- nobody can rid themselves of the existence of the name Phrag. dalessandroi since it was validly described. So use it if you like, or any other valid name that might apply to a given individual plant with features that fit.
> 
> ...


I stumbled across this posting ... and I guess I will be regarede as aggressive ... but I don't care.

I don't quite understand why someone claiming to be a scientist can write: "I guesss I support their description as species in order to get the Latin binominal on record." What do you want to say ... descriptions just to put names on record??????

And one can validly describe any plant as species or variety or form as there is no rule deliniating a plant "species", "variety" or form.


----------



## cborchids (Mar 5, 2012)

DNA has been part of taxonomy for a while now, but as above, variation in DNA can itself be low or high within a given taxon. In our species for example there's a lot more variation in African populations than in any others, though others as in China or India are more numerous, indicating a "bottleneck" or event that limited diversity in those larger populations. In orchids, also as above, starting with gross morphology seems sensible, as we're trying to distinguish one "kind" from another, rather than drawing relationships so obscure that we'd each need equipment for analyzing DNA in order to label our plants. All that done, there's an interesting book by Simon Conway Morris (used to do prep work for Stephen Jay Gould) contending that DNA also converges through evolution, same or very similar chemical pathways used over and over, obvious example being chitin used for arthropod shells and for fibers in fungi. So, DNA wouldn't necessarily be foolproof if a researcher didn't already recognize for instance that Paphiopedilums isn't very closely related to Cattleya.

I have been amused by the question of how different a species should be to have that rank - the cochlopetalums seem pretty close to one another, compared to the mastigopetalums, for instance, and maybe not surprising as the geographical range of cochlopetalums is rather limited by comparison.

OK now back to work for me!


----------

