# Cattleya to be expanded



## Ron-NY (Mar 7, 2009)

To make things more confusing, it looks like all the Laelias that were moved to Sophronitis are now being moved to Cattleya


----------



## bench72 (Mar 7, 2009)

hmm... maybe one day, everything in the laeliinae would be Cattleyas and then there won't be any more of those crazy long names... everything would be cattleya...


----------



## nikv (Mar 7, 2009)

All I know is that I absolutely refuse to call my favorite orchids Sophronitis purpurata. I really don't care what the taxonomists say about it, there's just no way I'm gonna think that a purpurata and a coccinea belong together.


----------



## JeanLux (Mar 7, 2009)

the Chadwicks in their excellent book 'the classic cattleyas' from 2006 classified already 6 laelias as catts: crispa, perrinii, lobata, grandis, purpurata and tenebrosa!! IMO this was more appropriate, for me as a hobby grower and from a physical point of view, than switching them to sophronitis!!! Jean


----------



## toddybear (Mar 7, 2009)

Why can't the orchid taxonomists just leave things alone. I see that most vendors still use the old names for the hybrids...the new hybrid names can't be pronounced! Thwaitesara...now really! Isn't Blc so much easier?


----------



## John M (Mar 7, 2009)

Ron-NY said:


> To make things more confusing, it looks like all the Laelias that were moved to Sophronitis are now being moved to Cattleya


 Not on my plant labels! They're still Laelias and they're going to stay that way!

I don't understand why anyone in the horticultural industry/hobby is paying any attention to this madness. Let the "expert" taxonomists tweak the botanical nomenclature all they want. The horticultural world, especially the RHS hybrid registrar, would function just fine by continuing to use the already widely established names. This way science can keep progressing and adding new knowledge; but, we will still be able to figure out what we've got in our collections. This "trying to keep up" with the botanical name changes is causing many plants that are the same, to have different names on their labels, depending on which taxonomist the growers are currently supporting. Plus, now because the (%$#@%$^&) RHS keeps changing things, we've got significantly different hybrids now carrying the same name. 

Once upon a time, the horticultural orchid world really had it's act together with regard to hybrid naming; but now, because of the RHS "flip-flopping", we are moving towards complete chaos. Because of the RHS Orchid hybrid registrar, it won't be long before people won't be able to figure out the family tree of particular hybrids. We'll become like the Hosta people, where everything is simply known by a clonal name and the species in the background will be impossible to identify. If this keeps up, we're at the beginning of a time where a tremendous amount of valuable species and historically important hybrid plants will be lost to obscurity. They'll still be out there; but, nobody will know what the hell they are!


----------



## Ron-NY (Mar 7, 2009)

I totally agree with you John. I have refused to change a single tag. 

They can't let all these sit in Cattleya. Next we will be seeing subspecies of Cattleya being proposed


----------



## NYEric (Mar 7, 2009)

Don't worry, if the full moon falls on the 2nd thursday of the month they'll change everything again!


----------



## Roy (Mar 8, 2009)

I agree with everyone here. I think its about time that hobby growers, commercial growers and Organisations like the AOS, AOC and every other country tell these dimwits to take a flying leap!!!! Then issue a statement saying that the "OLD" names for all these plants will remain as is. This would need minor adjustments for those names already accepted and used by the majority. These names, or most have worked well for 2 centuries.


----------



## paphjoint (Mar 8, 2009)

I want names.. is this that Chiron guy again ?


----------



## Hera (Mar 8, 2009)

Maybe I'm being naive, but couldn't they (somebody) do chromosomal tests to determine which lines actually are related. Seems like this would be a more acurate way to classify plants than strictly atributes. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but to a novice this makes sense.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 8, 2009)

Hera said:


> Maybe I'm being naive, but couldn't they (somebody) do chromosomal tests to determine which lines actually are related. Seems like this would be a more acurate way to classify plants than strictly atributes. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but to a novice this makes sense.



All (right?) of the new changes to the Cattleya alliance are based upon recent genetic work. However, genetic analysis isn't always the silver bullet that it is made out to be. In many cases, only one gene or region is compared across the species being studied.

Nevertheless, I'm a fairly big proponent of using such molecular data in systematics. I haven't checked out the results from the recent Cattleya studies, but I feel that they may be jumping the gun. I'd like to see more genes/regions used before changes are made that apparently contradict morphology.

In closing, it is important to remember that botany and horticulture are totally separate. It is a systematic botanist's job to make changes that accurately reflect the evolutionary history, even if those changes anger horticulturalists. However, I don't think many people are totally convinced that the recent Cattleya changes actually do reflect the evolutionary history. Hopefully, more investigation will paint a clearer picture.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Mar 8, 2009)

Points to be made on both sides here.

Taxonomists (if they are doing their job properly) are trying to figure out the real evolutionary relationships, and follow the established rules. They should do their job regardless of the inconvenience it may cause in horticulture.

But there is no rule that says horticulturists must follow the most current and possibly fleeting taxonomic treatment. If we want to have a nearly universal registration system for orchid hybrids someone needs to keep track of the taxonomic equivalence of the horticultural names, but we don't need to change labels every 3 months. RHS should adopt a rational approach and stick with it.

This might mean that the historical treatment of Laelia is preserved for hybrid registration for convenience, even though Laelia then has at least 3 horticulturally distinct groups within it. It might also mean that 'species' not recognized by taxonomists are used for registration if they are horticulturally distinct.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 8, 2009)

IMHO, I think the taxonomists should *completely* finish their nomenclature thing, then get together with computer programming gurus, go though all the names of species & hybrids, put together a database. And then, and only then, publish it to make the changes. That way all of us growers could find the old names, change them, and know they will not change again next week.


----------



## Roy (Mar 8, 2009)

PaphMadMan said:


> Points to be made on both sides here.
> But there is no rule that says horticulturists must follow the most current and possibly fleeting taxonomic treatment. If we want to have a nearly universal registration system for orchid hybrids someone needs to keep track of the taxonomic equivalence of the horticultural names, but we don't need to change labels every 3 months. RHS should adopt a rational approach and stick with it.QUOTE]
> 
> Wrong and right with this. There are rules that dictated what happens when Taxonomic changes are made and adopted, the plants effected must have the correct name on them, particularly for export purposes, if they don't then the "Officials" reject then and won't let them through. (Ask Orchids Ltd )
> ...


----------



## labskaus (Mar 9, 2009)

paphjoint said:


> I want names.. is this that Chiron guy again ?



The other party. Cassio van den Berg.

I find it o.k. to use molecular data to help determine phylogeny, but good scientists would always use a polyphasic approach and include morphological characters and other relevant data as well. Taxomomy only should come after phylogeny has been resolved.

The lumping of all those Brazilian species into Sophronits certainly was a big mistake and based on a misleading data set. Now comes the proposal to put many of those species (back) into Cattleya, which is, in my eyes, not much better. I can see the superficial resemblance of the large Brazilian Laelias (purpurata etc.) with the unifoliate Cattleyas, but he puts all the rupicolous Laelias into Cattleya as well, and that is, well, no improvement.

Problem for all of us who want to know the reasoning behind: we can't really critizise his work since *Van den Berg still hasn't published those long announced molecular data that back up his case*!

As I said, I find it interesting, helpful and important to resolve the relationship between all these orchids. That is (would have been) possible first hand without changing a single name. It is quite unfortunate for the horticultural community that Van den Berg and others chose a topic for their work that is of such great interest for us. I wish they would have chosen to figure out the genus Habenaria.

Cheers, Carsten (grumpy)


----------



## PaphMadMan (Mar 9, 2009)

Roy said:


> Wrong and right with this.



I was referring to rules governing taxonomic changes. I had not even thought about the regulatory and legal implications. Taxonomic changes then also impose costs on taxpayers who ultimately must pay for changes in regulations and training of personnel to implement them.


----------



## Roy (Mar 10, 2009)

PaphMadMan said:


> I was referring to rules governing taxonomic changes. I had not even thought about the regulatory and legal implications. Taxonomic changes then also impose costs on taxpayers who ultimately must pay for changes in regulations and training of personnel to implement them.



Ok, with you now. It seems as if that there are no regulations, to me anyway. Seems like a group of taxonomists get together and study a genus and do half hearted tests and write a paper as to their findings, present it to anyone who will listen and have adopted and the changes made. Its like their a law unto themselves.


----------

