# Cattleya Rhoda is what grex ???



## Drorchid (Dec 22, 2009)

I just looked up Cattleya Rhoda at the RHS website, and to my amazement there are now 3 official grexes registered as "Cattleya Rhoda". The problem was that in the past you could use the same grex hybrid name if it was in the Cattleya alliance as long as the genus name was different. For instance in the past you could name a hybrid Cattleya Rhoda, Slc. Rhoda or Lc. Rhoda. Now they have changed the rules so if you want to register say a new Laelia hybrid, you cannot name it Laelia Precious Stones as there already is a Cattleya Precious Stones.

So in the past someone registered a Cattleya Rhoda in 1908 (as Hardyana x Iris), a Slc. Rhoda in 1925 (as Epicasta x coccinea) and a Lc. Rhoda in 1943 (Coquette x Gloriette). Recently the RHS changed a lot of the Cattleya alliance genus names (many of the Laelia species and all the Sophronitis species are now considered Cattleya). As a result all three grex names are now called "Cattleya Rhoda". 

My question is, if you have a plant labeled as Cattleya Rhoda how do you know what it is (if the parents are not on the label)? and if you register a new hybrid with one of the parents being Cattleya Rhoda will that just create confusion in the long run?

Robert


----------



## Candace (Dec 22, 2009)

Ack. What a mess.


----------



## nikv (Dec 22, 2009)

I just don't get why they couldn't leave things alone. Let Cattleyas be Cattleyas, Laelias be Laelias, and Sophronitis be Sophronitis. Yeah, I know. The taxonomists had their reasons. But this is the result of their efforts.


----------



## slippertalker (Dec 22, 2009)

They will grandfather all of those duplicated grexes moving forward and if you don't know the actual cross you are out of luck. The same will be possible in several other genera, and some species will have to change their names due to duplication in odontoglossum and oncidium.

As long as the registrar is accepting new names as they cycle between being valid and not, the confusion will continue.


----------



## Shiva (Dec 22, 2009)

Seems to me the confusion is already here. Just call it C. Rhoda and let the judges make up their mind if you ever take it to AOS judges.


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 22, 2009)

Candace said:


> Ack. What a mess.


And I don't know how it can ever be straightened out now.


----------



## smartie2000 (Dec 23, 2009)

thank God we are mostly slipper people....


----------



## TyroneGenade (Dec 23, 2009)

Perhaps is its time the RHS start ignoring the taxonomists and go with something more practical, and dare I say, historical.In our hobby, where the names REALLY matter, Cattelya Rhoda is now a meaningless name thanks to taxonomists.


----------



## Shiva (Dec 23, 2009)

smartie2000 said:


> thank God we are mostly slipper people....



How about besseae and dalessandroi?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Dec 23, 2009)

RHS lists these 3 not simply as Rhoda, but Rhoda (1908), Rhoda (1925) and Rhoda (1943). Presumably those would be the official names going forward for judging and registration. Not pretty, but once existing plants get relabeled there is no confusion, and any plant that can't be specifically identified as such should be treated as any other NOID would be.

Don't blame the taxonomists for any of this, they are just doing their jobs, following the existing rules of nomenclature, and following the best curently available evidence. Like all science at all times if done right, it represents our best understanding at this time and will always be subject to change. Laelia, Sophronitis and Cattleya were all artifical groupings as they were, and there had to be some adjustment. That is just reality.

RHS hasn't handled it well, making multiple rounds of changes in a rapidly changing taxonomic world and some awkward new designations, but that is also just the reality we have to deal with. You can maintain your old labels as long as you like but ultimately that won't cut it for judging or registration.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Dec 23, 2009)

For our purposes stability is more important than keeping pace with taxonomists. While the RHS is obligated to keep track of the understanding of the various species that have been cataloged it doesn't have to keep changing the names which have been used in our hobby. It is more useful for us to retain Cattleya Rhoda, Slc. Rhoda in 1925 and Lc. Rhoda than C. Rhoda (1908), (1925) and (1943). Not everyone has been around long enough to know that the C. Rhoda 1925 is Epicasta x coccinea but Slc. Rhoda immediately tells us what Catt forms have been invested into that Hybrid and better serve to look that plant up in the literature to find out what traits it imparts on hybrids.

In a practical world practicality should take presidence over theory (which is all a specific epithet is). There is no reason why the hobby epithets couldn't be retained with a note as to the modern correct epithet of the species used to make the cross (a epithet which will probably change in a year or two anyway).


----------



## slippertalker (Dec 23, 2009)

Shiva said:


> How about besseae and dalessandroi?



Even more confusing is the caudatum group taxonomy changes. Phrag wallisii is now Phrag warscewiczianum. Phrag warscewiczianum became Phrag popowii, then became Phrag warscwiczii. The first name is for the lighter colored, more feminine flower from South America. The second is for the compact and dark colored flower from Central America. 

When the taxonomists reviewed the original description sheets, they determined that warszewiczianum and wallisii were the same species and both were defined as South American. The Central American form was incorrectly named as humboldtii, more recently redifined as popowii by Braem, then an old name of warscewiczii was refound by Christenson.

On top of these changes, the RHS is registering crosses with all of these names as they evolve. It might be good to see a picture of the parents so you know which warscewiczianum is being used.

Such problems are not new, even in Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum. At one point, there was confusion with Selenipedium, Cypripedium, Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum, and many of these terms were interchanged before they were redefined.

In regards to besseae and dalessandroi, that has changed also. Previously they were both considered besseae, then split into seperate species. In the interim they were bred together (phrag Jersey) and both had registered crosses, in fact quite a few. Now, the Monocot List considers them Phrag besseae, Phrag besseae var. dalessandroi, and Phrag besseae var besseae for the yellow form. 

Take a deep breath and wrap your mind around all of that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Just be aware!


----------



## parvi_17 (Dec 23, 2009)

Shiva said:


> How about besseae and dalessandroi?



And the Cyp. parviflorum complex!

C. x favillianum should really be C. x andrewsii nm. favillianum, because pubescens is a variety of parviflorum. And Cyp. x andrewsii seems to be universally recognized as C. (parviflorum var. parviflorum x candidum), yet should it not be C. (parviflorum var. makasin x candidum)? I don't think the range of var. parviflorum goes as far north as candidum.

And of course, tons of people still call C. parviflorum C. calceolus, which boils my blood...


----------



## smartie2000 (Dec 23, 2009)

I don't think this slipper stuff is more confusing than 3 Rhoda! As Rhoda is a hybrid, and this knowledge of the history of these names will be lost in the future generations. They could have created new names or made Rhoda plus the hybridizer's last name as the new registered grex name. But confusing regardless

And I am not changing my labels for my cattleya alliance collection. Nor oncidium alliance. Maybe later

I refuse to use the epithet warscewiczianum anymore. It is either popowii or wallisii for me. And if a tag reads warscewiczianum, it is very likely that it was powowii since it was a old tag, but the bloom or hybridizer would verify. besseae and dalessandroi, they are mixed up already in breeding and it doesn't seem to matter to many people. There are false dalessandroi out there too


----------



## parvi_17 (Dec 23, 2009)

smartie2000 said:


> I don't think this slipper stuff is more confusing than 3 Rhoda! As Rhoda is a hybrid, and this knowledge of the history of these names will be lost in the future generations. They could have created new names or made Rhoda plus the hybridizer's last name as the new registered grex name. But confusing regardless
> 
> And I am not changing my labels for my cattleya alliance collection. Nor oncidium alliance. Maybe later
> 
> I refuse to use the epithet warscewiczianum anymore. It is either popowii or wallisii for me. And if a tag reads warscewiczianum, it is very likely that it was powowii since it was a old tag, but the bloom or hybridizer would verify. besseae and dalessandroi, they are mixed up already in breeding and it doesn't seem to matter to many people. There are false dalessandroi out there too



I think all of those long-petalled Phrags should have been considered varieties of caudatum from the beginning. P. lindenii and P. exstaminodium _might_ be unique enough to be separate species, but even they are clearly just mutations, if you will, of caudatum.


----------



## Scott Ware (Dec 23, 2009)

smartie2000 said:


> thank God we are mostly slipper people....



Oh, don't think slippers are exempt from the madness!

According to the RHS, one could offer flasks of the following:


_Paph._ Monsieur de Curte
_Paph._ Fulshawense
_Paph._ Nitens
_Paph._ Almos
_Paph._ Celeus
_Paph._ Chantino-villosum
_Paph._ Colin
_Paph._ Dido (1903)
_Paph._ Great Rex
_Paph._ Mrs. Cary Batten
_Paph._ Souvenir du Dr Weber
_Paph._ Souvenir du Prescott Weber
*..... and only ever have to set one capsule!!!!!*


----------



## smartie2000 (Dec 23, 2009)

parvi_17 said:


> I think all of those long-petalled Phrags should have been considered varieties of caudatum from the beginning. P. lindenii and P. exstaminodium _might_ be unique enough to be separate species, but even they are clearly just mutations, if you will, of caudatum.



that is true too. so very similar plants with different grexes.


----------



## Kavanaru (Dec 23, 2009)

As PaphMadMan said, do not blame the taxonomist and systematicists for the name changes. It is their job to classify and clarify the limits and relation between "real" species (even though they sometiems end up in a mess too )

The main problem here (IMO) is that the RHS is adopting roles which do not correspond to them. Its name is Royal HORTICULTURAL and not Royal SYSTEMATIC/TAXONOMY Society (leave that to Kew!). Taxonomist and systematicist don't care much about artificial hybridization and so on... In my opinion, it would have been easier to assume what they are there for, and keep the old names where Cattleyas were Cattleyas, Laelias were Laelias and so on... if wanted/needed a "translation" list could has been kept where it is indicated that e.g. what is called Laelia purpurata in horticulture is currently know as Cattleya purpurata and so on (this "translation" list is not a crazy idea, as it is used on a daily basis in different subjects, e.g. Pharma!).

At some point the whole mess will be so big, that they will come back adopting all those old names or new names or or or and everything will be a big chaos, where "one could cross Paphiopedilum with Cattleya knowing that Paphiopedilum is actually not an orchid"


----------

