# The idea of this forum



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Hi Folks,

it had become evident that there are a lot of questions about taxonomy, identification of hybrids, etc. etc.

This issue is extremely important. Therefore we consider it a good idea to devote a separate forum to these questions. Those of you that have been following the "General Taxonomy" tread have had a taste of the questions involved.

The rules we all have to work with (taxonomists, hybridizers, commercial growers, etc.) are obviously not satisfactory. The idea is that we discuss the issues, identify the problems and try and figure out new and applicable rules. At the end of the day, we can formulate new rules and either set up our own set or make proposals to change the existing ones. (I will explain this later).

I suggest that we use this tread to discuss general questions of procedure. Remember that we have to discuss publication problems, systematic delineation problems. Of course, if we don't know the rules to delineate species and to decide which taxa are valid and effective (with other words, which name is applicable), we also don't know how to delineate a hybrid. 

One thing we have to decide on is whether we separate "Botany" and "Horticulture" in two treads. 

What I would like to see is what is called "brainstorming". Just think of what aspect of taxonomy and horticulture you have problems with. And lets take it from there.

Please remember that I also have other committments. The idea for this discussion is from me, and I obviously am prepared to devote time on this. But I need help. We need experienced growers who know the problems surrounding hybrids. And we need taxonomists as well as anyone interested in the subject. 

OK, I kicked the ball and it is rolling. Lets see where the players are.

regards
Guido


----------



## littlefrog (Nov 20, 2006)

Can I ask a not exactly slipper question?

In AOS judging saturday we had two plants (pleurothallids) that were described by Luer to be: "Identical to species X, but with smaller flowers" (to loosely paraphrase). Now, I know pleurothallids are tough, and there are like seventeen zillion species out there, but do we really need to use flower/plant size as a diagnostic character? 

I had a Paph. charlesworthii bloom out last month with a flower the size of a US quarter, can we name that new species after me?

But this is a serious question. Can we use flower size to separate species? Should we? Is there an argument here for reducing some of these pleurothallid species to synonymy?


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

*Flower size*

Rob,

when we discuss the rules, they apply to all orchids (and plants).

To your questions:
Flower size ALONE cannot be a taxonomic marker. (That answers your first question, but I know that when Dr. med. ret. Luer speaks about pleurothallids, quite a few people throw themselves on the ground in adoration.) 
I do not wish to hide my astonishment about seeing someone doing "taxonomy" by describing two taxa as new and autonomous species when he himself calls them "identical" to an existing species. I sure hope he did not conduct his surgery that way.
I will refrain for any further comment on the subject for today. 

Ergo, I deeply regret to have to tell you, that I feel not called upon to describe the small flowered _charlesworthii_ as a separate species in your honour. I am sure that you will be exceptionally graceful and forgive me.

So to your serious question: NO (first and second part) and YES (third part). ANY species founded on flower size ALONE is to be challenged. (The same, by the way is to be said about flower colour).

regards
Guido






littlefrog said:


> Can I ask a not exactly slipper question?
> 
> In AOS judging saturday we had two plants (pleurothallids) that were described by Luer to be: "Identical to species X, but with smaller flowers" (to loosely paraphrase). Now, I know pleurothallids are tough, and there are like seventeen zillion species out there, but do we really need to use flower/plant size as a diagnostic character?
> 
> ...


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 20, 2006)

From a horticultural perspective, I see a pending split between taxonomy and 
a solution for growers. Most of us are traditionalists and enjoy some continuity over time, hence once we have identified a plant we desire some permanence to the name. This obviously is contrary to the ever evolving world of taxonomy as relationships are reviewed and (perhaps) better understood.
The recent changes with RHS registrations are causing a LOT of confusion which will continue when the taxons keep changing. Going back in time and trying to make sense of hybrids since the beginning under this continual revisionist plan just doesn't work.
I would have no problem with the registrations of hybrids remaining as they have always been under the previously understood names for continuity, while at the same time letting taxonomists proceed with never ending splitting.
Most of us have serious problems with the lumping of Brazilian species under Sophronitis, and will continue to call them under the old names. Will this drive a split between taxonomists and horticulturists?
The recent renaming of the wallisii, warscewiczianum, popowii,etc group is confusing as hell and will lead to more misnamed crosses as some are made under old names and some under new names......


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

*Problems*

OK ... but you are referring to _many different problems _that are intertwined. The renaming of plants  has its validity in some cases. Horticulturist, whether they want or not, have to live with it. 

Continuity over time CAN be good but is unrealistic. Everything in the world evolves. You are certainly not driving the same car you did forty years ago. And I could use other examples ... Such as elections. You elect a new president at least every 8 years. 
Another one: Do you want to have surgery done by someone using methods that are 40 years old?

On the other hand, you don't want any changes in taxonomy. The reasoning is, I am afraid, not quite logical. 

The idea is to find ways the solve the problems. Stopping taxonomist from doing their work is NOT the solution. We have to find ways to deal with hybrids even when the names of the parents have changed. 

PS. Of course, lumping the Brazilian Laelias into _Sophronites_ is nonsence. Whoever puts _Laelia purpurata _(to use the old name) together with _Sophronites coccinea_ in one genus should get new glasses.

Guido









slippertalker said:


> From a horticultural perspective, I see a pending split between taxonomy and
> a solution for growers. Most of us are traditionalists and enjoy some continuity over time, hence once we have identified a plant we desire some permanence to the name. This obviously is contrary to the ever evolving world of taxonomy as relationships are reviewed and (perhaps) better understood.
> The recent changes with RHS registrations are causing a LOT of confusion which will continue when the taxons keep changing. Going back in time and trying to make sense of hybrids since the beginning under this continual revisionist plan just doesn't work.
> I would have no problem with the registrations of hybrids remaining as they have always been under the previously understood names for continuity, while at the same time letting taxonomists proceed with never ending splitting.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> OK ... but you are referring to _many different problems _that are intertwined. The renaming of plants  has its validity in some cases. Horticulturist, whether they want or not, have to live with it.
> 
> Continuity over time CAN be good but is unrealistic. Everything in the world evolves. You are certainly not driving the same car you did forty years ago. And I could use other examples ... Such as elections. You elect a new president at least every 8 years.
> Another one: Do you want to have surgery done by someone using methods that are 40 years old?
> ...



But using the 40 year old car example.... Just because the original car maker has been bought out by a new manufacturer with a new company name does not change the name of the old car. A 40 year old Datsun is still a Datsun not a Nissan. Changing the model name would not work either.

And, because we have a new president every 8 years does not change the name of the old ones. If the USA suddenly has a King instead of a President we will not refer to George Washington as the first King.

I think registered plant names should remain constant regardless of new taxonomic policies.

And why do horticulturists have to live with new names taxonomists change to?


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 20, 2006)

Braem said:


> OK ... but you are referring to _many different problems _that are intertwined. The renaming of plants  has its validity in some cases. Horticulturist, whether they want or not, have to live with it.
> 
> Continuity over time CAN be good but is unrealistic. Everything in the world evolves. You are certainly not driving the same car you did forty years ago. And I could use other examples ... Such as elections. You elect a new president at least every 8 years.
> Another one: Do you want to have surgery done by someone using methods that are 40 years old?
> ...



Guido,

I don't disagree with much of what you have said, but my premise was that taxonomy and horticulture don't always have common interests. Continuity is GOOD for horticulture, and having a clear idea of the parentage of a cross works for most of us. I like the fact that Paph Leeanum is still Paph Leeanum.
The registration system has changed little over time, but the chess pieces have.

If you read my earlier statement a bit more carefully, you will see that at no time did I state that I didn't want changes in taxonomy. By definition, taxonomy will constantly be exposed to change by science, opinion or bias, and new discoveries. 

My position is that the static system of orchid registration should be kept seperate from the evolving system of genera splitters. I don't see the illogic of that argument. The only other way to fix the system is to start over from the beginning with both systems, and that's virtually impossible.

Taxonomists can, should and will attend to their trade. Their ideas differ, change, and befuddle each other. Why should the RHS registration system be caught up in this turf battle when it could all be changed tomorrow? I blame the recent registration changes on the RHS for altering their previously conservative approach to name changes.

In my opinion, the dichotomy between the two is derived from different goals.
Neither has the ability to adapt to the other...........


----------



## bench72 (Nov 20, 2006)

sorry about the stupid question, but...

why can't we just lump all the cattleyas, laelias, sophronitis, brassavolas, schomburgkias, etc etc into one? ie just call them all Laelinae etc etc... eg. Laelia purpurata = Laelinae purpurata; Sophronitis coccinea = Laelinae coccinea; etc etc...

you can still keep the names Cattleya, Laelia, Sophronitis but used on a level which is similar to say cochlopetalum or brachypetalum in the Paphiopedilum genera...

This way, the taxonomists can keep moving things around to better show the relationships, but the horticulturists need only remember a few 'Genera' or 'Family'...

how far back we go though... maybe all the way back to Orchidacae.. e.g Orchidacae purpurata, Orchidacae coccinea (although there would be heaps of doubling up..)


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 20, 2006)

Great Idea Guido!!

As someone who is active in the orchid buissness and has a minor background in Plant Taxonomy I feel like I can be a link between the 2 worlds of Horticulture and Plant Taxonomy, so count me in to help in anyway I can.

Robert


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 20, 2006)

By the way, I like your idea Bench72, and I don't think it was a stupid question. Actually I believe that Julian Shaw, the orchid registrar of the RHS, had the same idea as you (regarding putting related genera like Cattleya, Laelia, Sophronitis etc all into one "Super Genus", so it was not too far off.

Robert


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

gonewild said:


> But using the 40 year old car example.... Just because the original car maker has been bought out by a new manufacturer with a new company name does not change the name of the old car. A 40 year old Datsun is still a Datsun not a Nissan. Changing the model name would not work either.



OK, we don't change the plant. We just change the name. So, it is still a Datsun, we just give it a new designation.



gonewild said:


> And, because we have a new president every 8 years does not change the name of the old ones. If the USA suddenly has a King instead of a President we will not refer to George Washington as the first King..



Sure but you will do what your new president says, and not what George Washington says (if he were able to say anything)



gonewild said:


> I think registered plant names should remain constant regardless of new taxonomic policies.
> 
> 
> > OK so we should stick with the first given names, no matter how much nonsense they are. So back to _Cattleya citrina??? _(Or was it _Sobralia citrina?)_, Back to _Laelia monophylla?_ or back to _Octadesmia monophylla??_
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> Guido,
> 
> I don't disagree with much of what you have said, but my premise was that taxonomy and horticulture don't always have common interests. Continuity is GOOD for horticulture, and having a clear idea of the parentage of a cross works for most of us. I like the fact that Paph Leeanum is still Paph Leeanum.
> The registration system has changed little over time, but the chess pieces have.
> ...



I don't have any problem with that. But that means we are setting up two entirely different worlds. 
OK I will go along with that. But what is going to happen at the next orchid show and conference. There will be a lot of confused people. 

And yes, you hit the nail by saying we would have to start all over. Well, that is exactly my point. Lets draw a line and start all over. That is the only clean solution. But I am realist enough (like you) to say that we won't get away with it. But would it not be worth trying.

Guido


----------



## Braem (Nov 20, 2006)

First of all, there are no stupid questions. Just arrogant people that do not want to take the time to answer the questions properly (and I don't belong to that group)

OK You cannot use the name of one level (in this case the name of a tribe or subtribe) and turn it into another level (a genus.)
Secondly, where would you want to stop. The end is that you can end up with one genus _"Epidendrum" _and make all the rest subgenera, varieties, subvarieties, forms. But you are not changing anything but the organisation of your system. The complexity remains the same, you just changing levels.

For example you have the genus _Cattleya,_ and now you put the genus _Laelia_ into _Cattleya_ as a subgenus. Fine. But do the simple maths: you start off with two taxa and you end up with two taxa. You haven't gained anything.

Guido






bench72 said:


> sorry about the stupid question, but...
> 
> why can't we just lump all the cattleyas, laelias, sophronitis, brassavolas, schomburgkias, etc etc into one? ie just call them all Laelinae etc etc... eg. Laelia purpurata = Laelinae purpurata; Sophronitis coccinea = Laelinae coccinea; etc etc...
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Nov 20, 2006)

> Braem said:
> 
> 
> > OK, we don't change the plant. We just change the name. So, it is still a Datsun, we just give it a new designation.
> ...


----------



## bench72 (Nov 21, 2006)

1. We gain by having less genera.... ie if everything is in Cattleya, then the plants cannot be moved around and renamed Sophronitis one week and Laelia the next. Sure, there will be a level that the taxonomists can play around with, but for the horticulturist, we need only remember that they are all Cattleyas and forever will remain so. Another point in this would be that we can get rid of the man made generas. Gone are the BLC, the SLC, the Potinaras... all will be one.

2. If you don't want to confuse the tribe vs subtribe vs genera, then pick one of the current genera, e.g Laelia, and lump them all in there. Maybe choose the first described genera in the group.

3. You are right about the complexity, but as far as the horticulturist is concerned, we only need worry about end name... the taxonomists can worry about the complex bit in the middle. 

4. I guess I'll answer the same question I hinted at (and you asked about) ie, what to do with duplication...

Rename the buggers!

i. I thought the taxonomists would be jumping at the chance to rename a couple of plants? 
ii. Surely it would be preferrable if a couple of plants are renamed if it means that there are less genera (maybe one) to remember. (speaking of course purely on my behalf)
iii. I'm more than happy to allow benchii, timii, balgosii, earthii and various others that I can make up if required for new names. 

So,e.g.

Genus: Cattleya
Subgenus: Cattleya, Sophronitis, Laelia, Schomburgkia, etc etc (taxonomists allowed to play around with)
Species: Cattleya purpurata, Cattleya coccinea, Cattleya walkeriana (once renamed should stay as such)

oh no... a Laelia crispa (Rchb. 1853) and a Schomburgkia crispa (Lindley 1838)

no problem.... Schomburgkia crispa = Cattleya crispa (it was named crispa first)

and Laelia crispa = Cattleya heatherii

anyways.... all of a sudden this is a long post... sorry... heaps!

cheers
tim





Braem said:


> OK You cannot use the name of one level (in this case the name of a tribe or subtribe) and turn it into another leves (a genus.)
> Secondly, where would you want to stop. The end is that you can end up with one genus _"Epidendrum" _and make all the rest subgenera, varieties, subvarieties, forms. But you are not changing anything but the organisation of your system. The complexity remains the same, you just changing levels.
> 
> For example you have the genus _Cattleya,_ and now you put the genus _Laelia_ into _Cattleya_ as a subgenus. Fine. But do the simple maths: you start off with two taxa and you end up with two taxa. You haven't gained anything.
> ...


----------



## NYEric (Nov 21, 2006)

*Opinion*

I have a problem w/ Mr. Leur describing a plant as the same as species X but with smaller flowers because suppose it's a similar but different species. If one species had medicinal benefits such as a cure for cancer and another plant, the same as species X but with smaller flowers, was poisonous don't you think the difference would be critical. Taxonomists need to [more] carefull in there cataloging species because plants are really a limited resource and not maintaining their position in the Earth's ecology, and our use of the plants, could have serious consequences. With the technology available today we could register plants w/ the exact range a species is/was located in, map it's genetic markers, and do all the standard RHS descriptions.


----------



## Braem (Nov 21, 2006)

*3=3*

Tim,

think about it ... You are not changing anything. Your "gone" genera are now fractions of _Cattleya. _And if you are going to have a _Cattleya_ subgenus _Laelia, _you can just as well have a genus _Laelia _etc.

Lets not make chaos. The idea of taxonomy is cleaning up the desk, not to throw everything on one pile (of which I have many in my office). So you do not gain by having less genera, because loose two on this side means adding two on the other side.

Let me explain. You get yourself three wives. Now, you find out that for some more or less irrational reason, you are only allowed one wife. OK, you divorce two and keep them as girlfriends. What have you gained. You started out with 3 women and you ended up with 3 women. Its simple maths as I have said before. 3=3=(1+2)=(1+1+1) no matter how you put it ... 

Guido



bench72 said:


> 1. We gain by having less genera.... ie if everything is in Cattleya, then the plants cannot be moved around and renamed Sophronitis one week and Laelia the next. Sure, there will be a level that the taxonomists can play around with, but for the horticulturist, we need only remember that they are all Cattleyas and forever will remain so. Another point in this would be that we can get rid of the man made generas. Gone are the BLC, the SLC, the Potinaras... all will be one.
> 
> 2. If you don't want to confuse the tribe vs subtribe vs genera, then pick one of the current genera, e.g Laelia, and lump them all in there. Maybe choose the first described genera in the group.
> 
> ...


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 21, 2006)

Braem said:


> I don't have any problem with that. But that means we are setting up two entirely different worlds.
> OK I will go along with that. But what is going to happen at the next orchid show and conference. There will be a lot of confused people.
> 
> And yes, you hit the nail by saying we would have to start all over. Well, that is exactly my point. Lets draw a line and start all over. That is the only clean solution. But I am realist enough (like you) to say that we won't get away with it. But would it not be worth trying.
> ...



Guido,

We are already getting a lot of confusion at orchid shows with the new name changes. Many people refuse to change their plant names to the new concepts and I frankly don't blame them. On top of the taxonomic changes, RHS has changed genera names for many crosses based on the taxonomy and created a new monster. I seriously doubt if they have the ability to carry this back to the beginning of the system while dealing with synonyms (new or old) and species name changes. Keep in mind that there are 100,000 hybrids or so...

The question is whether we can create any harmony in the discord that has been created.


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 21, 2006)

Guido,

can you clarify the rules for species names.......

For example, the ends of the species name can end in "ii" or "num"
.....lowii or lowianum. Also the forma can be flava or flavum. Does that evolve from the genus name? There appear to be exceptions to the rules also, hence my confusion.

thanks!


----------



## NYEric (Nov 21, 2006)

Slippertalker, this problem probably stemmed from a poor command of Latin. "Vidi, vinci, vini.":rollhappy:


----------



## Braem (Nov 21, 2006)

Yeah, and about 2,000 genera with a total of about 35,000 species . I know. But can we at least agree that the present situation stinks?

What do we want to do? We can sit here and keep saying: "the system stinks but lets not do anything about it." In that case, lets close this forum and be happy ever after.

Or do we want to look for solutions? But all what has been proposed does not clear the mess. You can't say, lets stick with the names we have, because lots of them are wrong. And you need a serious foundation for what you are going to do from now on.

We have to find a way to secure the names. If that is done, we won't have to change them. 


Guido



slippertalker said:


> Guido,
> 
> We are already getting a lot of confusion at orchid shows with the new name changes. Many people refuse to change their plant names to the new concepts and I frankly don't blame them. On top of the taxonomic changes, RHS has changed genera names for many crosses based on the taxonomy and created a new monster. I seriously doubt if they have the ability to carry this back to the beginning of the system while dealing with synonyms (new or old) and species name changes. Keep in mind that there are 100,000 hybrids or so...
> 
> The question is whether we can create any harmony in the discord that has been created.


----------



## Braem (Nov 21, 2006)

*endings*

That is not a problem. The endings are very clearly defined in the Code, recommendation 60 C.

to use your examples:
"lowii" is dedicated to a male person by the name of "Low" in a substantival epithet. (Only when the name ends on "r", there is only a single "i" like in "fischeri".) (Its the genitive inflection).

"lowianum" is identical but simply used as the ending of a adjectival epithet.
Thus "lowianum" is identical to "lowii", but in a grammatical variation which (more or less is left to the "taste" of the author.) (Its the nominative inflection) .
I could just as well have described "fischeri" as "fischerianum". And of course you cannot have a _Phrag. fischeri_ and a _Phrag fischerianum,_ these names would be homonyms. 

"flava" and "flavum" are just "sexual derivates", and they must be identical with the gender of the genus: Therefore "Cattleya flava" or "Laelia tenebrosa var. flava" but "Oncidium flavum" and "Phragmipedium besseae var. flavum" (my mistake that I have described it as "flava". That is a grammatical mistake that is automatically corrected without having any influence on the validity of the taxon. It just shows that taxonomists are mortals (if you ever quote me on this, I will deny ever to have said that ).

And there are no exceptions to those recommendations. 

Guido

PS . I decided to add the full text of the recommendation:

---------------

60C.1. Personal names may be given Latin terminations and used to form specific and infraspecific epithets as follows (but see Rec. 60C.2):

(a) If the personal name ends with a vowel or -er, substantival epithets are formed by adding the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g., scopoli-i for Scopoli (m), fedtschenko-i for Fedtschenko (m), fedtschenko-ae for Fedtschenko (f), glaziou-i for Glaziou (m), lace-ae for Lace (f), gray-i for Gray (m), hooker-orum for the Hookers (m), except when the name ends with -a, in which case adding -e (singular) or -rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g. triana-e for Triana (m), pojarkova-e for Pojarkova (f), orlovskaja-e for Orlovskaja (f)).

(b) If the personal name ends with a consonant (except -er), substantival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. lecard-ii for Lecard (m), wilson-iae for Wilson (f), verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers, braun-iarum for the Braun sisters, mason-iorum for Mason, father and daughter).

(c) If the personal name ends with a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -an- plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g., Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne, Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley, Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero), except when the personal name ends with -a in which case -n- plus the appropriate inflection is added (e.g. balansa-nus (m), balansa-na (f), and balansa-num (n) for Balansa).

(d) If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webb-iana for Webb, Desmodium griffith-ianum for Griffith, Verbena hassler-iana for Hassler).

Note 1. The hyphens in the above examples are used only to set off the total appropriate termination.
-------------------------





slippertalker said:


> Guido,
> 
> can you clarify the rules for species names.......
> 
> ...


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 21, 2006)

thanks, Guido!


----------



## slippertalker (Nov 21, 2006)

Braem said:


> Yeah, and about 2,000 genera with a total of about 35,000 species . I know. But can we at least agree that the present situation stinks?
> 
> What do we want to do? We can sit here and keep saying: "the system stinks but lets not do anything about it." In that case, lets close this forum and be happy ever after.
> 
> ...



Solutions..........

How can you maintain a registration system with the ever changing taxonomy?

We could certainly create a Manhattan project for orchid registrations to clear up the problems. This would need the cooperation of taxonomic authorities and horticulturists. Both parties have their differences within their own groups, and those differences need to be addressed first. If a consensus could be reached, it would take a joint effort to formulate new systems for working the problems. 

Much of what already exists could be retained, but rules of engagement (changes, amendments, etc) need to be reviewed.
We need to look at the multiple problems and find solutions that work for everyone.........Many will be resistant to new ideas, but others will see the need for new concepts.


----------



## bench72 (Nov 21, 2006)

Guido,

maybe I am not explaining the reason why I want to 'lump' everything into bigger groups...

I don't want to consolidate two species into one species name. I want to consolidate the Genus (maybe further up the name ladder). In the new order, if there are 35,000 species now, there will still be 35,000 species with less genus names.

All I want to do is to make the names of the species constant once the new order is in place.

Let me work backwards from my idea.

Think about the Dendrobiums... currently it has a lot of species in that group. Now various taxonomists want to move plants into split genera, e.g. Thelychiton, Dockrilla, Tetrabaculum for the Australian Dendrobiums. 

Now, why can't we just retain the big Dendrobium genus and if taxonomists want to show the relationships of the plants better, then change the tree relationship...

e.g at the moment:-

-Laelinae
*Laelia anceps
*laelia purpurata
-Cattleya
*Cattleya walkeriana
-Sophronitis
*Sophronitis coccinea

New Order
Laelinae
-Laelia
*Laelia anceps (or maybe Laelinae anceps)
-Cattleya
*Laelia walkeriana (or Laelinae walkeriana)
-Sophronitis
*Laelia coccinea (Laelinae coccinea)
*Laelia purpurata (Laelinae purpurata)

So you haven't increased or decreased the number of species... however, the number of Genus (or whatever you want to call the new order level) is reduced to one. 

Now breed them... 

Old:-
Laelia anceps x Cattleya walkeriana = Laeliocattleya Twilight Song
= 3 different genus

Laelinae anceps x Laelinae walkeriana = Laelinae Twilight Song
= only one genus(?) to remember

I have no problem with having the 'gone' / 'lost' genera turned into fractions of the greater Super Genus... let the taxonomists keep it to show the relationships within the Super Genus.

What I don't want to see is that this week, Laelia purpurata is Sophronits purpurata and then tomorrow it is Cattleya purpurata. It is better that the name is constant and the relationships (which affect the grower little) is changed.

I hope the above is clearer...





Braem said:


> Tim,
> 
> think about it ... You are not changing anything. Your "gone" genera are now fractions of _Cattleya. _And if you are going to have a _Cattleya_ subgenus _Laelia, _you can just as well have a genus _Laelia _etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

Bench 72,

The answer is very simple: 

1) you cannot stop the evolution of a science.
2) if you have 7 people, you have 24 opinions - we are suffering from a democracy syndrome [Oh Lord, am I going to get flamed on that one].
3) Everyone is allowed to do taxonomy, no matter if they understand it or not.
4) Everyone is allowed to register hybrids, no matter how wrong their notions of the parentage is. 

Do you need more reasons why the system does not work? Or shall I tell you about the Code and what has been happening around it over the last 30 years?

Guido


----------



## bench72 (Nov 22, 2006)

Hi Mr Braem

_


Braem said:



Bench 72,

1) you cannot stop the evolution of a science.

Click to expand...

_


Braem said:


> I don't want to stop science from evolving. I just want it to improve while it's evolving. Also can it try to take into account what else other than the science is affected... in this case the countless number of orchid growers who will have to buy new plastic tags every time a species has a name change.
> 
> _3) Everyone is allowed to do taxonomy, no matter if they understand it or not._ I've never understood taxonomy, I'll be the first one to admit. My education in this field is below what is required to assess why one species is the same, or not the same, as another.
> 
> ...



with great regards,
Tim (aka bench72)


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

Tim, 

Of course you are completely right. There is a big discrepancy between what happens in taxonomy and what is useful or not for the "common people". And I don't mean "common people" in a negative sense. 

But that is exactly the point. Professional taxonomy is difficult enough to follow, understand and incorporate. We sure don't need amateur taxonomists (which are 90 % of all "taxonomy" in orchids). And this is why a lot of university departments look very critical upon working with orchids unless you do molecular work

Of course putting Laelia into Sophronitis is *PURE NONSENSE,* and I have said this before. The problem is that the "molecular taxonomists" get all the money and therefore, genetics is THE thing to do (because you get money for the department). And now, you create and create because you have to get the papers out to get the money. It is what we call a vicious circle.

Unfortunately, we cannot ignore "molecular taxonomy" (and I use it myself), but one should view it as a additional method to verify and complete alphataxonomy. 

And as an afterthought: Tim, you cannot condemn something because you don't understand it. I am using a car every day. If it breaks down, I can't repair it. The same goes for computers, the same goes for the microwave, and many other things in life. 

Guido


----------



## gonewild (Nov 22, 2006)

Here is a twist on the subject.

I think a good example to look at in reference to changing names of plants is books.

Libraries function on a registration system. Each book has a number. The book is in the same place in the library each time someone looks for it. Change the number and a person goes to get their favorite book from the shelf and it is not there. The "common" reader becomes confused and leaves the library without his book. The "professional" reader simply goes to the "professional" librarian and asks where is the book now?

I doubt the public would accept a group of professional librarians going through all written manuscripts and renaming them just to simplify the filing of the books in the library. Changing Sobralia citrina to Cattleya citrina might compare to changing "Gone with the Wind" to "Frankly". 

Plant names to the "common" user (millions of people) are a road map to their passions. Maybe a system needs to be developed that maintains traditional names out of respect to history and it's participants. I rather like the sound of Sobralia citrina as I'm sure did the person who named it that.


----------



## Braem (Nov 22, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Here is a twist on the subject.
> 
> Changing Sobralia citrina to Cattleya citrina might compare to changing "Gone with the Wind" to "Frankly".
> 
> Plant names to the "common" user (millions of people) are a road map to their passions. Maybe a system needs to be developed that maintains traditional names out of respect to history and it's participants. I rather like the sound of Sobralia citrina as I'm sure did the person who named it that.



I am afraid you are mistaken. Changing _Sobralia citrina_ to _Cattleya citrina_ is saying: "Hey, this book is listed as _The Da vinci Code,_ but actually, it is _Gone with the Wind."_.

And most taxonomist don't choose a name because it "sounds good". And surely not in the "old times" ... Just look at some of Reichenbach's names. 
And I like "Sobralia citrina" too. Maybe there should be "a convention" that the first given name (in this case Sobralia citrina) must be maintained as a bracket name. By the way, the originally given name is called the "basionym"

For example _Paphiopedilum venustum [Cypripedium venustum]._and _Psychopsis versteegianum [Oncidium versteegianum]_

That would solve that problem. 

Guido


----------



## gonewild (Nov 23, 2006)

Braem said:


> I am afraid you are mistaken. Changing _Sobralia citrina_ to _Cattleya citrina_ is saying: "Hey, this book is listed as _The Da vinci Code,_ but actually, it is _Gone with the Wind."_.



I don't think so. _Gone with the Wind."_ and _The Da vinci Code,_ have completely different content and are in no way similar. _Sobralia citrina_ and _Cattleya citrina_ have the same content and are in fact the same thing. Now, you would be correct if what was written in the description of Sobralia citrina in fact described a completely different plant. But only the name has changed not the content.



> And most taxonomist don't choose a name because it "sounds good". And surely not in the "old times" ... Just look at some of Reichenbach's names.



Now there is a rule we could change.... All new plant names must sound good. Who wants a boy named Sue?



> And I like "Sobralia citrina" too. Maybe there should be "a convention" that the first given name (in this case Sobralia citrina) must be maintained as a bracket name. By the way, the originally given name is called the "basionym"
> 
> For example _Paphiopedilum venustum [Cypripedium venustum]._and _Psychopsis versteegianum [Oncidium versteegianum]_



That is a good idea. But don't expect plant labels to contain all the data. It can be the rule for scientific writings. Then when a horticulturist looks up something they would have half a chance of knowing what they were looking at. A search for _Sobralia citrina_ would yield results of _Cattelya citrina_ as well.



> That would solve that problem.
> 
> Guido



It might! The whole name change problem is much like when a child's mother remarries, do they change their "basionym" or keep the "basionym". Many choose to use both, old and new.(their scientific label). But their signature might have only one.(their plant label).


----------



## Braem (Nov 23, 2006)

Lance,

and who decides what sounds good?

Guido


----------



## likespaphs (Nov 23, 2006)

yeh! who decides? as a small grower, that'd be just another regulation that'll cut into the bottom line. why can't the consumer do her/his homework and figure this stuff out?
then again, if this just for scientific stuff, that's cool...


----------



## bench72 (Nov 24, 2006)

I don't want to seem like a prat, but I bite easily, so....



Braem said:


> Professional taxonomy is difficult enough to follow, understand and incorporate. We sure don't need amateur taxonomists (which are 90 % of all "taxonomy" in orchids).



Dr Braem,

You like your analogies, so let me conjure one for you...

_There are guys that are paid to shovel the garbage off the streets. They are experts in shovelling garbage! 

But they still have someone above organising and managing their daily chores... why? Because sometimes these guys who shovel are so deep in garbage, their focus is on shovelling!

Also, there is a system in place where if I see rubbish on the street, I can call up the local government and report it, and they will dispatch the shovellers to the problem._

So you see, even none 'experts' have a role to play. They may not shovel, but in putting forth what they see and experience, they assist in making the environment better! 




Braem said:


> (because you get money for the department). And now, *you create and create* because you have to get the papers out *to get the money*. It is what we call a vicious circle.



sounds more like a means to an end. *MONEY!*




Braem said:


> you cannot condemn something because you don't understand it.



oh, my problem with taxonomy is not because I don't understand it. My problem is the way people carry on without regards to who or what they affect!

I thought the idea of this sub-forum is to get ideas on how we may be able to improve the current system, well, I thought that maybe the notion of a 'Super Genus' might help. As DrOrchid pointed out, I am not alone in my thought, and I'm sure Julian Shaw would have explained the idea of the "Super Genus" much better.

So, I will defer commenting on any rubbish I see, and let the shovellers do their shovelling.


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Now,

if you would explain to us what exactly you want to achieve with that "Supergenus" it might help.

Guido


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> Now,
> 
> if you would explain to us what exactly you want to achieve with that "Supergenus" it might help.
> 
> Guido



A stable species name. 

One that doesn't change everytime the relationship between species plants is thought to have been clarified.


----------



## lienluu (Nov 25, 2006)

> A stable species name. One that doesn't change everytime the relationship between species plants is thought to have been clarified.



In theory, _possibly _a nice idea, but realistically things change. Science will constantly evolve new technicques and methods and understandings. It's the nature of research. It shouldn't be hindered but instead, encouraged. A static, unchanging idea implies that we have learned all there is to know about a particular subject. This is never true and there are always new things to learn about something, no matter how exhaustive the current body of work may be. 

The main problem is how these changes apply to and affect the way the general public go about using this idea. To say that a supergenus should be created and all further taxonomic progress be ignored by all except a few taxonomist only hinders progress. What's the point of doing any research if it's not going to be applied?

Is there a solution that will satisfy both populations? I don't know?

Lien


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Yes, but we already have that. Whether you put a number of genera in a subtribe or a supergenus makes no difference. Again, you would be adding only one level more. 

You have subfamily Cypripedioidea
in there you have Tribe Selenipedieae
in there you have Subtribe Selenipediinae
in there you have genus Selenipedium

Even if you would habe 7 genera in the subtribe, what help would it be to put in "Supergenus" ?

and what is next. Three months later you decide that the supergenus won't do and you add a supersuper genus? 

And by the way, all the entities above are well defined. However, it required to read and apply their definitions.

Guido





bench72 said:


> A stable species name.
> 
> One that doesn't change everytime the relationship between species plants is thought to have been clarified.


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

lien said:


> Science will constantly evolve new technicques and methods and understandings.... The main problem is how these changes apply to and affect the way the general public go about using this idea.... What's the point of doing any research if it's not going to be applied?"



Thanks Lien, 

What I was babbling on about was never meant to stifle research or science. I guess I was just hoping that a pot will always be called a pot and I want the research that goes into that pot to occur behind the scene (beyond the name). After all, one day, pots might be deemed carcinogenic... and I may want to stop using it. 

Guess I'll have to get used to it being one day called Marij.. I meant 'containers'. oke:




braem said:


> And by the way, all the entities above are well defined. However, it required to read and *apply their definitions*.



yes, you're right, it would certainly mean that when i conjure up a new order, it would at least not be bogged down in semantics. I should have also thought about giving the new levels new names... and definitions.

If something is broken, why keep using it? Doesn't that cause the problem to get worse? Why not fix it? While we're starting all over again with hybrids, why not start all over again with naming species... (oh I know... i'm just feeding the flame)


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

1) Some of the pots ARE carcinogenic. (If you burn the plastic pots, you get highly carcinogenic fumes).
2) Much more dangerous are the insecticides that some people use.
3) no, you are not feeding the flames. Taxonomy is not broken. It is misunderstood by most, and misused by a zillion of the "pseudotaxonomists" out there. The only problem there is, is that most of you people don't read books.
Of course some of the "rules" of taxonomy are "broken". And that is what I wanted to attend to, before being attacked.

Guido



bench72 said:


> Thanks Lien,
> 
> What I was babbling on about was never meant to stifle research or science. I guess I was just hoping that a pot will always be called a pot and I want the research that goes into that pot to occur behind the scene (beyond the name). After all, one day, pots might be deemed carcinogenic... and I may want to stop using it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heather (Nov 26, 2006)

Braem said:


> The only problem there is, is that most of you people don't read books.
> Guido



No kidding...I spend all my time reading and moderating this forum.  

If I were to read the books, I'm afraid I'd fall asleep. oke:


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

Heather said:


> No kidding...I spend all my time reading and moderating this forum.
> 
> If I were to read the books, I'm afraid I'd fall asleep. oke:



Now that is fine. I can live with people not reading the taxonomy books. But in that case, they should not complain about taxonomy. 
And generally speaking (and this is based on many years of experience): I know lots of people that spend LOTS of money for orchids (of which a fair percentage is sent to orchid heaven within a fairly short time) but who will not send 50 US on a book about those orchids. 

I wish all of you would be honest and tell me how much money they spend for orchids over the last five years and how much for orchid books over that same period of time. 

And when I read a book on maths, I fall asleep too. But I don't complain about maths.

Guido


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 28, 2006)

Braem said:


> I wish all of you would be honest and tell me how much money they spend for orchids over the last five years and how much for orchid books over that same period of time.


Since I started growing about 6 months ago:

Books: $420
Orchids: $305

However, about half of my plants were gifts, so that skews that figure a bit.

Yikes. I've spent way too much. No orchids this winter!


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 28, 2006)

Braem said:


> Unfortunately, we cannot ignore "molecular taxonomy" (and I use it myself), but one should view it as a additional method to verify and complete alphataxonomy.



I would never call my my work to have been molecular taxonomy, but rather molecular phylogenetics. True enough, a taxonomy - mine - resulted from a molecular (+ morphological) phylogenetic reconstruction, but this taxonomy was non-objective concerning taxic circumscriptions and use of hierarchies vis-a-vis nomenclature. Not only that, I produced 2 taxonomies based on the same results. Nothing was verified at any stage, and certainly nothing was completed. Alpha taxonomy supplies the phylogenetic investigator with names that can be used to circumscribe individuals used in phylogenetic analysis. Plant individuals are what are extracted for DNA. The more the better. Not only that, more individuals and more DNA sequence is better still. Even better will be coding microsatellite data that can be transferred well among all (e.g.) Paph species.

Concerning development of morphological characters for phylogenetics, one must make leaps of faith in deciding what features are homologous vs. not, and how to encode the variation seen. I have certainly made such leaps. But I have in no way verified anything, nor would I ever think that to be possible. We can only corroborate, and the greater the corroboration, the more robust the working conclusion.

Finally, let us not take alpha taxonomy nor molecular phylogenetics too seriously re: defining what species really are. There is a body of debate out there on what a species is or isn't (biologically and philosophically), and the situation in plants is especially difficult given frequent propensity for interbreeding in nature. Species, as we use them for slippers, are merely constructs of convenience; no investigator sees or analyzes the full range of variation in nature, so there is no use for even the 'best' taxonomist or phylogeneticist to pretend otherwise.

Taxonomy does not necessarily equal biology, and many useful taxonomies have been not been very biological. If we could marry evolutionary history with slipper species concepts - and do so robustly (i.e., with strong corroboration) - a slipper taxonomy should become stable.

Best wishes,

Vic


----------



## Braem (Nov 28, 2006)

Victor,

you very much have a point. What your branch is, is the DNA Analysis. After that, it is statistics. But still, it has its purpose (although you know well that I have always been critical). The problem is that the "general public" out there has been led _to believe_ over a series of years that so called _"molecular taxonomy" _is the best thing that happened since Eve gave Adam the apple [of course not saying that it wasn't an apple either], that one can solve all problems with the new method, and that alphataxonomy should be forgotten. That, of course is nonsense.

Now, to those people thinking of the definition of a species: First of all a species must be a _workable unit_ (a real population) within a _workable system._ Philosophical thoughts on that do not fit in biology (of course, I use "philosophy" here in the modern sense and not in the sence of the "natural philosophy" of pre-darwinian-times.)

I am sure (and I have pointed at that in earlier posts) that the molecular work is evolving and will give some new insights. It will, however always have to stay _"one tool among many tools"._ If taxonomy can only be done in the lab, we have lost the idea of _"useful classification"._

As far as taking taxonomy (whatever it comprises) serious, I differ with you. If we don't take classification (and naming) serious, we are letting the system slip into chaos. And I have pointed out that some parts of the system already are nothing but chaos.

As long as there is "democracy" on this planet, there never will be general consent on what a "plant species" is. Therefore, we should not have illusions about finding the ultimate taxonomy within any given group, including the slippers.

You have used _Mexipedium_ as an example in other posts. Now, no-one would like to deny that it is a slipper orchid. And no-one can deny that the differences (in respect to the plants as well as in respect to its flowers) between _Mexipedium_ and all other slippers is readily visible with the naked eye, and can be described in simple terms. Therefore, I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on the alternative to considering _Mexipedium_ a separate (autonomous) genus.

regards
Guido




VAAlbert said:


> I would never call my my work to have been molecular taxonomy, but rather molecular phylogenetics. True enough, a taxonomy - mine - resulted from a molecular (+ morphological) phylogenetic reconstruction, but this taxonomy was non-objective concerning taxic circumscriptions and use of hierarchies vis-a-vis nomenclature. Not only that, I produced 2 taxonomies based on the same results. Nothing was verified at any stage, and certainly nothing was completed. Alpha taxonomy supplies the phylogenetic investigator with names that can be used to circumscribe individuals used in phylogenetic analysis. Plant individuals are what are extracted for DNA. The more the better. Not only that, more individuals and more DNA sequence is better still. Even better will be coding microsatellite data that can be transferred well among all (e.g.) Paph species.
> 
> Concerning development of morphological characters for phylogenetics, one must make leaps of faith in deciding what features are homologous vs. not, and how to encode the variation seen. I have certainly made such leaps. But I have in no way verified anything, nor would I ever think that to be possible. We can only corroborate, and the greater the corroboration, the more robust the working conclusion.
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 28, 2006)

Dear Guido,



Braem said:


> What your branch is, is the DNA Analysis. After that, it is statistics.



Well that isn't quite true. I wear several hats. I have in fact described about a dozen new species (in Gentianaceae), and a new genus (also Gentianaceae). I've even worked with Gentianaceae floristics! And phylogenetics isn't just statistics! See my edited book, e.g.,

Albert, V. A., ed. (2006) Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics. Oxford Univ. Press. 229 + pages. Paperback edition, revised.

The first chapt. is available at http://folk.uio.no/victoraa/index_files/slide0002.htm




Braem said:


> Now, to those people thinking of the definition of a species: First of all a species must be a _workable unit_ (a real population) within a _workable system._ Philosophical thoughts on that do not fit in biology (of course, I use "philosophy" here in the modern sense and not in the sence of the "natural philosophy" of pre-darwinian-times.)



Well, as I said, there's a lot of debate out there, and your opinion is yours! What, e.g., is a real population? That's a good one. I'm working these days on a metapopulation in the Lamiaceae.



Braem said:


> As far as taking taxonomy (whatever it comprises) serious, I differ with you. If we don't take classification (and naming) serious, we are letting the system slip into chaos. And I have pointed out that some parts of the system already are nothing but chaos.



Well, we must be serious, but what I said and meant is that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously. Nomenclature is serious, to be sure, since we need valid names. But classifications, species circumscriptions, and the nature of species are less to get jumpy about because they are malleable to mere opinion.



Braem said:


> You have used _Mexipedium_ as an example in other posts. Now, no-one would like to deny that it is a slipper orchid. And no-one can deny that the differences (in respect to the plants as well as in respect to its flowers) between _Mexipedium_ and all other slippers is readily visible with the naked eye, and can be described in simple terms. Therefore, I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on the alternative to considering _Mexipedium_ a separate (autonomous) genus.



Well, it's a very easy matter to say that the conduplicate-leaved slippers have far more in common with themselves as a group than any of the three genera (Mex included) do by themselves. I also presented the alternative: establishing Mex cleared the way for readily used key characters to distinguish sp. xerophyticum, Paph, and Phrag. Otherwise, I argued that sp. xerophyticum blurred the Paph/Phrag boundary, at least for visible, non-gestalt traits. The DNA data supports either argument. You choose -- key chars. that unite conduplicate slippers, or key chars. that dsicriminate 3 condup-leaved genera. Or choose an alternative that I think is less useful, like sp. xerophyticum in Phrag, where it would disrupt key chars. for paph and Phrag. The bulk of the community seems to have chosen Mexipedium, so I am fine with that.

Yes, taxonomy should be useful, and there are often multiple alternative taxonomies that can be equally useful depending on where you cut the line between characters that can be described discretely vs. those available only as gestalts. And of course what is discrete vs. gestalt is subject to opinion!

DNA sequences and other DNA markers are in fact objective, which I like -- but that doesn't mean I believe that DNA is 'the answer' to slipper taxonomy -- it can't be, because it can only reveal relationships, not taxonomist's opinions!

Best again,

Vic


----------



## Braem (Nov 28, 2006)

Dear Victor,

Yes, Taxonomy is a serious business, but taxonomists should not take themselves too serious. That is very, very true.

I will have to get your book.

I am afraid I can't quite follow you on _Mexipedium._ I understand that _Mexipedium_ is different from _Paphiopedilum,_ _Phragmipedium_ and _Cypripedium._ That is why it was established as _Mexipedium._ I don't see it is blurring any boundary by any visible traits. Look at the flower, look at the leaves. Furthermore it does not interbreed with any phrag. There is no need for DNA result here, but if you want to use them: _they support an autonomous genus._ Even if and when you argue that the DNA result may possibly also support an other interpretation, the alphataxonomic evaluation is clear. Thus _Mexipedium_ is a good autonomous genus, _well-defined and well-separated from all other slippers._

The only alternative I see is to put _all_ slipper orchids together again in _Cypripedium._ But a) there is no point in doing that, and b) it would hardly be accepted by "the general public."

And yes, your DNA "markers" are _objective_ [assuming the procedures were carried out properly], but their choice is _subjective,_ and the interpretation of the cladistics made on the basis of them is _very subjective _indeed. 

best regards
Guido





VAAlbert said:


> Dear Guido,
> 
> Well, it's a very easy matter to say that the conduplicate-leaved slippers have far more in common with themselves as a group than any of the three genera (Mex included) do by themselves. I also presented the alternative: establishing Mex cleared the way for readily used key characters to distinguish sp. xerophyticum, Paph, and Phrag. Otherwise, I argued that sp. xerophyticum blurred the Paph/Phrag boundary, at least for visible, non-gestalt traits. The DNA data supports either argument. You choose -- key chars. that unite conduplicate slippers, or key chars. that dsicriminate 3 condup-leaved genera. Or choose an alternative that I think is less useful, like sp. xerophyticum in Phrag, where it would disrupt key chars. for paph and Phrag. The bulk of the community seems to have chosen Mexipedium, so I am fine with that.
> 
> ...


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 28, 2006)

Dr. Braem-

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that M. xerophyticum does blur the boundary between Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum *if* the unilocular ovary in M. xerophyticum is homologous with that of Paphiopedilum. Is it possible(or has it already been done?) to determine if the unilocular ovary of M. xerophyticum is an ancestral trait or if it is simply an adaptation due to decreased size and drier habitat?


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 29, 2006)

Yes, Kentuckiense,

The locularity of the ovary is at issue. Paph is unilocular; Phrag trilocular; Mex unilocular. Whether or not the unilocular Mex condition is a parallelism as regards Paphiopedilum, its presence at ovary midsection destroys locularity as a key character for identification purposes. Of course, the possibility of parallelism is interesting from the evolutionary perspective.

As I wrote in my original description, Mexipedium can still be diagnosed readily from Paph based on another character. Mex has branched inflorescences like some Phrags, but unlike Paphs.

The phylogeny supports Mex as as independent, but again, the data are ambiguous as to whether it is sister to Phrag (as published) or to Paph, or to both. Any of these ways you still run into the taxonomic key-character issue of the unilocular ovaries.

Guido, I don't agree with your comments on Mex, Paph, Phrag & Cyp. If one ignores the locularity feature altogether (remembering that this would also implicate Cypripedium, which is unilocular, whereas Selen is tri), there is a suite of characters that support the conduplicate leaved taxa -- to the exclusion of particular generic-level boundaries. These features are described in my two Lindleyana papers:

Lindleyana 9(2): 115-134, 1994
Lindleyana 9(2): 133-139, 1994

And many of these previously by Rosso:

Journal of the Linnaean Society of Botany 59: 309-341, 1966

And Atwood:

Selbyana 7: 129-247, 1984

Cypripedium has a rather different vegetative anatomy, for example, shared to considerable extent with Selenipedium.

No, the conduplicates are easy to separate from the plicate-leaved slippers, but the conduplicate genera are much more narrowly defined unless one looks into the microscope for chromosomes (Phrag and Mex are much smaller than Paph; Phrag has a different base chrom. number; that of Mex is not yet certain, but is fascinatingly 2n=26 like basal Paphs), considers geography and interbreeding more important than morphology (only the former can be a direct field observation!).

To dissect the interbreeding issue, we know that no combination of Mex, Phrag, or Paph can interbreed. But as I have argued elsewhere, interbreeding should not be used as a generic-level character among orchids, or we would run into big problems given that many recognized genera *can* in fact interbreed, whereas others can't.

And although we slipper freaks can easily wade our way between the Paph, Phrag, and Mex gestalts just by looking at a flower (or even a plant), we can't expect non-specialist botanists to automatically perceive these overall differences.

As regards molecular markers, when we pick a certain gene, that is subjective indeed. However, now that we have genomic-scale technology, we pick up genes at random -- thousands of them, which can then be 'mined' for markers based on criteria such as presence of potential nucleotide repeat elements that might be variable among individuals.

As regards the interpretation of phylogenetic results and its subjectivity, I have already addressed the point that one phylogeny (e.g., the one I performed to erect Mexipedium) could support several different taxonomies -- you choose where the hieracrchic boundaries for names lie.

Finally, again, the bulk of the community likes Mex, so do you, and I'm also perfectly OK with this alternative!

Best wishes,

Vic


----------



## Braem (Nov 29, 2006)

Kentuckiense & Victor,

OK - Granted. But in that case, the marker "number of locules" in the ovary is no longer good to distinguish between paphs and phrags. Fair enough. But that is just one single characteristic. The boundaries between paphs and phrags remain clear enough without that marker. There are many more. Thus, all you can say is that the discovery of _Mexipedium xerophyticum_ has shown that the marker "number of locules in the ovary" is no longer full proof for this group of plants.

Now, if anyone is uncapable of differentiating _Mexipedium_ from the other slippers by eye-sight, he/she needs either glasses or is ....
Thus, you rule out _Mexipedium_ and if you want, you can use the "locule-trick" again. 

Anything else in this respect is of purely academic importance and hardly of any practical use.

To the question whether the number of locules in the ovary is adaptive or not, I cannot say very much. We would have to see whether something similar occurs in other plants that grow in similar conditions, and even so, that would be some indication, but no proof. 

Guido






kentuckiense said:


> Dr. Braem-
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that M. xerophyticum does blur the boundary between Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum *if* the unilocular ovary in M. xerophyticum is homologous with that of Paphiopedilum. Is it possible(or has it already been done?) to determine if the unilocular ovary of M. xerophyticum is an ancestral trait or if it is simply an adaptation due to decreased size and drier habitat?


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 29, 2006)

Guido:



> The boundaries between paphs and phrags remain clear enough without that marker. There are many more.



Please elaborate that list! And please try to make those differences discrete enough to be used in keys.



> Now, if anyone is uncapable of differentiating _Mexipedium_ from the other slippers by eye-sight, he/she needs either glasses or is ....



You and me, but what about a novice, or a specialist in Gentianaceae who needs a workable key to do the job?



> Anything else in this respect is of purely academic importance and hardly of any practical use.



This is your opinion on what is practical! And, what is academic, I think. 'All conduplicates = one genus' could be considered practical by others. There are no overlapping species epithets, to my memory, so no new ones would need be erected as replacements. Your claim throughout these pages has been that taxonomy is an academic discipline, so I take this to mean that you'd agree with the view that practicality in taxonomy should also have an academic basis? No tongue-twister intended.

Best again,

Vic


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 29, 2006)

Oh,

Forgot to mention that the branched inflorescence character in Phrag is not uniform in Phrag, so it is not a perfectly clear identifier. Maybe then 'all condups = one genus' is better supported...

Many other morphological traits will fall into this category, for example, outwardly folded labella (only some Paphs), infolded labella (Mex, Phrag, only some Paphs), infolded and apically fused labella (only some Phrags), etc.

Maybe you like staminodes better? Leaf texture? Give us the list!

BW,

V


----------



## Braem (Nov 29, 2006)

Dear Victor,

OK let me do this one first:

You are quite correct that the branched inflorescence character in Phrag is not uniform. But that is in Phrag. Thus the character is not fool proof within the given genus. It is however useable to differentiate between the genera of the slippers (and that is what we are talking about, the differentiation between _Mexipedium_ and the othere *genera* of the slippers and not the differentiation between the various *species* of phragmipediums.)

Staminodes is a similar problem. You know that staminodes are variable within a number of species (for example very much so in the brachypetalums). But there is no staminode in _Phragmipedium _that can be confused with the staminode of a _Paphiopedilum. _

While I am at it: plant size
Yes, that is no good within any given species and no good in many other cases. But *within the slippers,* it is an excellent criterion to differentate between _Mexipedium_ and _anything else_. 

The same applies for leaf texture. The same for flower size, the same for overall flower morphology, the same for flower colour. I must have slept deeply if I have missed the description of _anything_ that looks in anyway similar to _Mexipedium._ And again, we are discussing slippers here. Nothing else. 

As a trained taxonomist, I know very well that all this _may_ possibly not apply to the Gentianaceae, Scrophulariaceae, or whatever. And I too wear several hats having worked on the sixteen families of plants in which there is "carnivory" and having worked on _Tulipa_ (Liliaceae). But that is not the subject of our discussion.

regards
Guido





VAAlbert said:


> Oh,
> 
> Forgot to mention that the branched inflorescence character in Phrag is not uniform in Phrag, so it is not a perfectly clear identifier. Maybe then 'all condups = one genus' is better supported...
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 29, 2006)

Victor,

I have dealt with your first two points in my other reply. Again, we are discussing the problems in the taxonomy of the slippers. Not the _Gentianaceae,_ although that are very interesting plants indeed.

As far as expressing my own opinions. Of course they are my own opinions. It would be bad if I were to express nothing but the opinions of others. But you will have to grant me that founding a taxonomy on DNA studies is not exactly practical (besides the fact that it does not work). Or maybe you can ask how many people of the somewhat 35000 members of the Orchid Societies world wide (admittedly a rough estimate) have access to a lab in which they can do molecular biology. 

And I maintain, that if we can differentiate between certain plants and plant groups by looking at them with the naked eye, it is very unpractical to blur the issue by anything else. I have shown on other occasions that the molecular studies in _Paphiopedilum_ and in _Phragmipedium_ on the species level or below species level are non-stable thus impractical if not simply non-applicable. Above that level, to differentiate sections, subgenera, and genera, they confirm (or if you wish to use another phrasing: they do not contradict) alphataxonomic procedures. I know of no instance _*within the study of slipper orchids*_ that molecular studies have revealed anything that was not recognizable with alphataxonomic means. 

Sincere regards
Guido









VAAlbert said:


> Guido:
> 
> Please elaborate that list! And please try to make those differences discrete enough to be used in keys.
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 30, 2006)

Hello again, Guido:

Just some counterpoints; having some fun!

Best wishes,

Vic



> It is however useable to differentiate between the genera of the slippers (and that is what we are talking about, the differentiation between Mexipedium and the othere genera of the slippers and not the differentiation between the various species of phragmipediums.)



Well, if inflorescence branching isn't constant within Phrag, then it doesn't discriminate Mex and Phrag perfectly -- if a novice compared Phrag caudatum with Paph and Mex based on this character, he might group Mex with Paph. Throw in a branched-inflor. Phrag, and the situation becomes more complicated.



> You know that staminodes are variable within a number of species (for example very much so in the brachypetalums). But there is no staminode in Phragmipedium that can be confused with the staminode of a Paphiopedilum.



Again, it is true that staminodia of Paphs and Phrags are dissimilar at the gestalt level, but those of Mex and Phrag are not particularly! Again, overlapping suites of characters can make identification -- using keys -- difficult for non-specialists.



> While I am at it: plant size
> Yes, that is no good within any given species and no good in many other cases. But within the slippers, it is an excellent criterion to differentate between Mexipedium and anything else.



Come on now! What about Paph barbigerum or helenae? To be picky, we could even throw in some of the tiny Cyps. True enough, the leaves of Mex show xeromorphic adaptations, as do those of Paph druryi. So, again, we need to say 'very thick-leaved plants that are very small, X cm by X cm'.



> The same applies for leaf texture. The same for flower size, the same for overall flower morphology, the same for flower colour.



These features are mostly in the realm of gestalt! For the first, compare Paph druryi with Mex, for the second, compare Paph hangianum with Phrag kovachii, for the third and fourth, maybe get confused between Paph delenatii and Phrag schlimii. You and I can tell the difference, but a practical system is one that suits multiple users of different backgrounds. *Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have a system with separate Paph, Phrag and Mex* -- only, as the Devil's Advocate, that one genus is an alternative, based on the bulk of the character data that supports a conduplicate-leaved lineage more than it does the specific 3 genera.



> But you will have to grant me that founding a taxonomy on DNA studies is not exactly practical (besides the fact that it does not work). Or maybe you can ask how many people of the somewhat 35000 members of the Orchid Societies world wide (admittedly a rough estimate) have access to a lab in which they can do molecular biology.



I won't grant you the first one in its entirety, Guido. Nobody doing molecular phylogenetics works with entirely unknown groups of plants; i.e., virtually all plants studied have already passed through the alpha phase and (hopefully) have valid names and fall into somebody's classification. Molecular data, as applied to such plant groups, can be very useful in determining whether supposed plant taxa have a single evolutionary origin, or several. The latter was found to be the case with Flacourtiaceae some years back, and after morphological/anatomical investigators took a second look, they found decent characters that support the separate origins. So in this case, molecular phylogenetics helped to redefine a plant family, since the 'true' Flacourtiaceae group could only include those plants related to the type species. Now, the taxonomy of former Flacourtiaceae groups has been changed, and accepted by most taxonomists. For *many* similar examples, please flip through Peter Steven's Angiosperm Phylogeny Website -- http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html . Of course, similar stories exist within the generic level.

So far as practicality goes, the members of orchid societies don't need to do this work! Results are easily disseminated, and when taxonomy might change as a result, implications for morphological diagnoses can be well elucidated. Who would suggest using direct molecular research to identify that non-blooming Paph plant on your windowsill, just collected (illegally, maybe) in Borneo? Let it bloom first! Then, if it doesn't match other species' descriptions or photos, bring it to the attention of a specialist or two. Then, maybe it'll get described and put into a taxonomic system. Then somebody might want to do molecular work to see what species it might be related to (genetically). Just an example.



> And I maintain, that if we can differentiate between certain plants and plant groups by looking at them with the naked eye, it is very unpractical to blur the issue by anything else.



OK again, but let's talk about forming a classification that has a key. That's the issue so far as I'm concerned. And remember, I don't object to Mex, Paph, & Phrag -- since they can be keyed out, AND they form separate evolutionary groups! (so long as you are willing to consider a monotypic genus a group)



> I know of no instance within the study of slipper orchids that molecular studies have revealed anything that was not recognizable with alphataxonomic means.



Come on now! Molecular phylogenetic research has, e.g., cleared up the issue of whether the Paph delenatii group (Parvisepalum, at whatever hierarchical level) is distinct from the Paph concolor group (Brachypetalum/Concoloria). Different taxonomies exist, but this research has shown that the 'parvisepalums' and 'brachys' branch off sequentially from the base of Paph, such that one subgenus or section for both would not constitute a natural group.

And if one gets picky with your usage of the word 'study', molecular research has certainly helped us to understand floral evolution among the slippers. Given that Paphs and Phrags at the base of their respective sub-trees have infolded (and usually inflated) labella, that Mex also does, and that Cyp (for the most part) and Selen also do, one can readily infer that such floral morphologies are 'primitive' within Cypripedioideae. This has consequences when one tries to interpret the gestalt floral similarity between, say, Paph delenatii and Phrag schlimii. Cribb hypothesized parallel evolution based on pollinator similarity, but molecular phylogenetic studies suggest this (basic) similarity to have been derived from shared, primitive characteristics. The Lorifolia Phrags and the vast majority of Paphs are more evolutionarily 'advanced'. Interestingly, the phylogenetic tree strongly suggests that the evolution of fly pollination has occurred several times in parallel among the slipper orchids, from basically bee-pollinated flowers.


----------



## Braem (Nov 30, 2006)

Dear Victor,

indeed, this is fun. Will reply in detail later. My internet is "kaputt" and I have to use a friend's system. So please, bear with me for a few days.

Guido


----------



## NYEric (Nov 30, 2006)

Wow! Am I the only one whose head is spinning from all the big words?:crazy:


----------



## Braem (Nov 30, 2006)

Eric, if there are any words we use that may be confusing, please let us know. I will be glad to explain and remove blurs (in as far as I can), and I am sure that Victor will be willing to do the same.

regards
Guido



NYEric said:


> Wow! Am I the only one whose head is spinning from all the big words?:crazy:


----------



## Kyle (Nov 30, 2006)

Hi Guido,

Gestalt - I have never heard that word. Please let me know what it refers to.

I really enjoy this thread,
Thanks,


----------



## VAAlbert (Nov 30, 2006)

Agreed! Very happy to describe terms.

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, a gestalt is a "configuration of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable from its parts in summation."

In other words, a general, overall perception that can defy description by a series of explicit attributes. So, with a Phrag, maybe you can tell it is a Phrag by just looking at it, but you can't really say why.

V.

Best,

Vic.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 30, 2006)

Or, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.


----------



## Braem (Dec 4, 2006)

They "stole" the word from the German language: but in German you write it with upper case "G" : Gestalt.

Guido




VAAlbert said:


> Agreed! Very happy to describe terms.
> 
> From Webster's Third New International Dictionary, a gestalt is a "configuration of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable from its parts in summation."
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Dec 4, 2006)

Not really, in nature one plus one = two .... anything else is imagination and not scientific.

Guido



SlipperFan said:


> Or, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.


----------



## Braem (Dec 4, 2006)

Victor et alia,

here a few answers to your counter points. I have not figured out yet how to edit those things the way you do. Maybe someone can tell me.

1) If anyone, novice or not puts a Phragmipedium, a Paphiopedilum, a Cypripedium and Mexipedium xerophyticum (whether in flower or not) on a single table and uses his/her eyes, he/she will readily recognize that all these are different.

2) Put a Mexipedium side on side with a helenae. That will do the job. The small cyp ... same thing .... not in anyway alike in any aspect.

3) It is true that hangianum and druryi are different. So what. Mexipedium is unique by its habit as well as by its flowers. There is NO other slipper that is in anyway comparable with Mexipedium. 

4) The notion that the parvisepalums (delenatii group) are to be put together with the brachypetalums (bellatulum group) was for a very short time propagated by Cribb. He was also the one that claimed that P. armeniacum is a variety of P. delenatii and he also propagated that the parvisepalums are a link between Cyps and Paphs. 

all you need to do to differentiate between the parvisepalums and the brachypetalums is to look at the pouch. Pointed pouch = brachypetalum, non-pointed pouch = parvisepalum. Of course there are a number of other criteria that can be used. For example the leaf morphology. One look ... that suffices.

I wont comment on "evolution" in the slippers, because I don't want to comment guesswork.

5) As far as your practicality example is concerned. Sorry, but when I see a slipper orchid, I can tell you what the related species are without consulting a lab.

More later ... 
Greetings
Guido






VAAlbert said:


> Hello again, Guido:
> 
> Just some counterpoints; having some fun!
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Dec 4, 2006)

Guido, 

You certainly have a 'feeling' for your organisms, but taxonomy (supposedly) should have a scientific basis. According to you too. That means, to me, that you need characters that can be used in keys. I am becoming a broken record here. If we were chatting in a forum on grasses or crucifers instead (e.g.), we'd be *really* concerned with diagnostic criteria that one can actually find written down on paper. But even though we are talking slipper orchids, that does not make these plants immune to the sundry aspects of a good classification: good (useful) circumscriptions around taxa (be they genera, species, etc.), and names with proper priority to match them. Just because a Mex and a given Phrag, a Paph, and a Cyp might be 'diagnosable' by the untrained eye, that doesn't abrogate the need for a formal, keyable, slipper orchid classification. So, why not get off the gestalt thing, and just go for key characters? One can suggest quite fine key chars. for a single conduplicate-leaved genus, or one can make a nice key for Mex, Paph, and Phrag. I suppose keys become more difficult at the slipper species level, however... though some have tried.

Well, parvisepalums aren't a 'link' between cyps and Paph, but being basalmost in Paph, they may have inherited some chars. in common with the common ancestor of Paph, Phrag, and Mex (which I have already described as probably having the inflated pouch character). 'Missing link', no, but both Chen and Cribb made just a little sense when they suggested such things. Not a very good way Chen put it, however.

Evolutionary research = guesswork? That's a funny one!

Finally, glad that you know what the 'related species are' when you see a plant, but I'm not even sure what a slipper orchid species is!

Best as always

Vic


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 4, 2006)

Braem said:


> Not really, in nature one plus one = two .... anything else is imagination and not scientific.
> 
> Guido


It's a philosophical statement, Guido.


----------



## Braem (Dec 8, 2006)

Dot,

I did realise that :evil: 

Guido





SlipperFan said:


> It's a philosophical statement, Guido.


----------



## Braem (Dec 8, 2006)

Victor, 

I think we agree on many points. No question, taxonomy should be put on a scientific basis. And it is. If I base taxonomy on leaf structure, flower structure, form of pollinia etc. etc., it is a scientific basis.

And you use the "keys" again. Of course you are right again, you must be able to key out your taxa. But we have been doing that ever since good old Linné tought up the binominal system. Behind my back, on my book shelves, I have plenty of keys. And they are all based on alphataxonomic characteristics. Look at Braem; Braem & Chiron; Cribb; Schmeil-Fitchen, Schlechter, and the many textbooks for botany. The keys in those books work. So, where is the problem?

I have, however, a problem with creating (I hate that word) a key and to leave out on-time characteristics. If you take _Hispaniella henekenii _in the Oncidiinae, the key you can start off with is :

1) flower looking like a bee .... _Hispaniella henekenii_

there is no other plant in the Oncidiinae that matches that other than Hispaniella. So where is the problem?

Now to my funny statement: can you please give me one piece of single evidence that is reliable (fossil record, or whatever) enough to allow a decent statement about the evolution of orchids. Maybe I missed something somewhere. And if so, I would be glad to be shown that I did miss something

sincere regards 

Guido





VAAlbert said:


> Guido,
> 
> You certainly have a 'feeling' for your organisms, but taxonomy (supposedly) should have a scientific basis. According to you too. That means, to me, that you need characters that can be used in keys. I am becoming a broken record here. If we were chatting in a forum on grasses or crucifers instead (e.g.), we'd be *really* concerned with diagnostic criteria that one can actually find written down on paper. But even though we are talking slipper orchids, that does not make these plants immune to the sundry aspects of a good classification: good (useful) circumscriptions around taxa (be they genera, species, etc.), and names with proper priority to match them. Just because a Mex and a given Phrag, a Paph, and a Cyp might be 'diagnosable' by the untrained eye, that doesn't abrogate the need for a formal, keyable, slipper orchid classification. So, why not get off the gestalt thing, and just go for key characters? One can suggest quite fine key chars. for a single conduplicate-leaved genus, or one can make a nice key for Mex, Paph, and Phrag. I suppose keys become more difficult at the slipper species level, however... though some have tried.
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Dec 8, 2006)

Braem said:


> Victor,
> 1) flower looking like a bee .... _Hispaniella henekenii_
> 
> there is no other plant in the Oncidiinae that matches that other than Hispaniella. So where is the problem?



OK enough informally, but one should still be able to key it out formally! And in this case, this should pose no problem so long as one defines Oncidiinae first with key characters.



> Now to my funny statement: can you please give me one piece of single evidence that is reliable (fossil record, or whatever) enough to allow a decent statement about the evolution of orchids. Maybe I missed something somewhere. And if so, I would be glad to be shown that I did miss something



Ah, I think we may have been 'talking past each other'! Do you mean the evolution of orchids in the sense of their origins from monocotyledonous ancestors? The actual evolutionary steps that took place millions of years ago? The actual morphological changes, i.e., that occurred? I have mainly been speaking about evolution in terms of reconstructing the history of orchid lineages, i.e., phylogenetics. We do indeed have tools from (probably especially molecular) developmental biology that can HELP us to try to reconstruct how morphologies may have evolved in the past, but these will only generate hypotheses, maybe strong and very interesting ones, but _only _hypotheses. There is, as you say, nothing in the fossil record that can give us any _direct _evidence. So, e.g., the hypotheses about inflated pouches = primitive in slippers from my earlier posts i a hypothesis that matches both the phylogeny and a look at how flower buds develop.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Vic


----------



## Braem (Dec 9, 2006)

Victor, 

yes. It seems to be the case. The problems I have are (for example): what is the proof that low chromosome counts are the primitive form? or where is the proof that inflated pouches are primitive? or that the single-flowered species are promitive etc. or _vice-versa_

The phylogenetics are indeed the interesting part. I remember a paper from the late Jack Fowlie on the evolution of the slippers and Wallace's line in the Orchid Digest, for example. Jack was a great guy, but ... 

So what I mean is: where is the proof that cyps or more primitive than paphs or phrags or _vice versa. _

Etc. etc.

regards
Guido






VAAlbert said:


> Ah, I think we may have been 'talking past each other'! Do you mean the evolution of orchids in the sense of their origins from monocotyledonous ancestors? The actual evolutionary steps that took place millions of years ago? The actual morphological changes, i.e., that occurred? I have mainly been speaking about evolution in terms of reconstructing the history of orchid lineages, i.e., phylogenetics. We do indeed have tools from (probably especially molecular) developmental biology that can HELP us to try to reconstruct how morphologies may have evolved in the past, but these will only generate hypotheses, maybe strong and very interesting ones, but _only _hypotheses. There is, as you say, nothing in the fossil record that can give us any _direct _evidence. So, e.g., the hypotheses about inflated pouches = primitive in slippers from my earlier posts i a hypothesis that matches both the phylogeny and a look at how flower buds develop.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Dec 10, 2006)

Hi Guido,

Evidence leads to inference. In the case of evolutionary biology, we cannot seek proof unless we are working with E. coli strains (or similar) in completely controlled conditions, and still, this isn't as exact as solving the crystal structure of a protein.

I think we should go over what primitive means in the context I've used it. I do not mean primitive, e.g., in complexity, in the sense of a single celled amoeba versus a human. When one uses the term primitive in a phylogenetic context, it simply means further and further back on a particular tree in terms of 'nodes' (branching points) from the root (where the tree 'begins'). 

I'll use the 'inflated' pouch characteristic as an example. Inference of 'primitive' simply follows from where traits appear on the hypothetical tree of slipper orchids. Given that the slipper tree is 'rooted' at Selenipedium, and that that one node up is Cyp, and then one node up is, for now: (Paph + (Mex + Phrag)), and within Paph: (Parvi + (Brachy + the rest)), and within Phrag: (Micro (+ rest)), and that the distribution of 'inflated is:

- Selen
- Cyp
- parvi Paphs
- Mex
- micro Phrags

....then one most parsimoniously infers that the tree nodes in between all the inflated guys, you can think of them as hypothetical ancestors, had the same trait as well.

Not proof; but most-parsimonious inference based on a phylogenetic hypotheses, itself derived from empirical data. Remember, 'primitive' here referes only to the inference that *further up* in the slipper tree, in terms of tree nodes, one infers that fly pollination evolved several times in parallel. Primitive here only refers to the positioning (in this case by parsimony inference) of where observed characteristics 'started' and 'stopped' or 'reversed' in a phylogenetic context.

Re: Wallace's Line, then you get into biogeography, and maybe how particular Earth regions might 'map' onto the Paph part of the slipper tree. i.e., using geographical areas as characteristics. If one tries this on the tree of Cox et al., one does not get a single most-parsimonious solution for all slippers since Old World / New World shifts back and forth. But within Paph, it becomes clear (from parsimony) from the tree nodes that mainland SE Asia is 'primitive', followed by movement out into insular SE Asia.

If you don't like parsimony, then I suggest you read the literature that supports its use as a scientific criterion for the basis of argumentation (comparison) of the robustness of hypotheses . E.g., try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor

Of course, use of parsimony inference does not mean that evolution proceeded parsimoniously! It simply means that one does not make extra assumptions that are not necessary to explain given data at hand. If you choose a hypothesis that is less than most-parsimonious, you do so by 'waving your hands in the air', and take a greater risk of hypothesis refutation.

Hope this helps,

Vic




Braem said:


> Victor,
> 
> yes. It seems to be the case. The problems I have are (for example): what is the proof that low chromosome counts are the primitive form? or where is the proof that inflated pouches are primitive? or that the single-flowered species are promitive etc. or _vice-versa_
> 
> ...


----------



## Braem (Dec 13, 2006)

Victor,

That is an extremely interesting statement for someone claiming to be a scientist. 

regards
Guido



VAAlbert said:


> Hi Guido,
> 
> ... In the case of evolutionary biology, we cannot seek proof ....
> 
> Vic


----------



## gore42 (Dec 13, 2006)

Dr Braem,

I think that this statement is in accord with most post-positivist science methodology. The general idea is that scientists can provide support for certain theories, and dis-prove alternative theories, but not prove theories to be true. This is a well accepted position within science and the philosophy of science.

- Matthew Gore


----------



## Braem (Dec 13, 2006)

Matthew,

we are not talking about philosophy of science here. We are talking about a group of people claiming that they can decide on the phylogeny of organisms (in our case: plants) by looking at a very limited part of the genome. If those people (as Victor has so clearly confirmed) are not willing to explain their materials and methods and are not willing to discuss the sense or nonsense of their method, then, they have nothing to do with any scientific approach which they are supposed to have learned in their first semester of university. Fact is that not I, but Victor and his colleagues claim that they have the method of choice. And you are all willing just to take their word for it?

I wonder what they are afraid of. Fact also is, that more and more often, they must review their interpretation.

I, for my part, have failed 3 students last term for making the kind of statements Victor and his colleagues make. And I will keep doing so as long as I teach university.

Don't forget that it is they who say that Laelia purpurate is a Sophronitis, etc. etc,

If they were to be followed, anyone could claim tomorrow that paphiopedilums have been derived from cattleyas. If that is the sense of this forum, then I must reflect on whether I am willing to waste any more time on this.

Sincere regards
Guido J. Braem





gore42 said:


> Dr Braem,
> 
> I think that this statement is in accord with most post-positivist science methodology. The general idea is that scientists can provide support for certain theories, and dis-prove alternative theories, but not prove theories to be true. This is a well accepted position within science and the philosophy of science.
> 
> - Matthew Gore


----------



## gore42 (Dec 13, 2006)

Dr Braem,

I agree that sceintists are responsible for explaining and supporting their conclusions, and I am making no claim at all regarding the validity of Victor Albert's work. 



> Hi Guido,
> 
> ... In the case of evolutionary biology, we cannot seek proof ....
> 
> Vic



In response to this statement, you have called into question the requirements of justification for his claims, making this an epistemic issue. As such, it is proper to answer the question from the standpoint of Philosophy of Science.

As I say, this only places different requirements on what Dr? Albert must provide as justification. Science does not require that he provide proof (in the logical or geometrical sense) for his proposition. Obviously, this doesn't mean that his proposition requires no justification... and I don't know whether he has provided what is required or not, as I haven't read his publications. 

- Matthew Gore


----------



## Braem (Dec 18, 2006)

I am svery sorry to differ.

All I have done is to ask Victor Albert to tell us what methods and materials he uses and to explain to us how he comes to his results and how he comes to his interpretations. That is nothing to do with any philosophy of science but has to do with the verification of the applicability of his methods and the meaning of his interpretation. Any claim in science is to be verified on those bases.

If Victor Albert refuses to do that, the question that should be asked is: "What has ge got to hide?"

Guido






gore42 said:


> Dr Braem,
> 
> I agree that sceintists are responsible for explaining and supporting their conclusions, and I am making no claim at all regarding the validity of Victor Albert's work.
> 
> ...


----------



## VAAlbert (Aug 30, 2007)

Braem said:


> If Victor Albert refuses to do that, the question that should be asked is: "What has ge got to hide?



Well, I'm glad we took a break with this one. Never hid a thing, will still be happy to chat, but will not engage in phantasmagoric argumentation! :rollhappy:

Best wishes,

Vic Albert.


----------



## Heather (Aug 30, 2007)

Welcome back! We've missed you.


----------



## bwester (Aug 30, 2007)

Wow, somebody pulled out Mr. Peabody and his Wayback Machine for this one


----------



## li'l frog (Aug 31, 2007)

But it's timely again, with all the new hybrid names being posted, and all of the changes to Cattleya and Sopronitis, and the decimation of Laelia.


----------



## likespaphs (Aug 31, 2007)

li'l frog said:


> But it's timely again, with all the new hybrid names being posted, and all of the changes to Cattleya and Sopronitis, and the decimation of Laelia.



what's a Laelia? oke:


----------



## bwester (Aug 31, 2007)

likespaphs said:


> what's a Laelia? oke:



Shes that really hot chick from Star Wars.


----------



## Heather (Aug 31, 2007)

bwester said:


> Shes that really hot chick from Star Wars.



LOL! 
This struck me as amusing because I just set up a google alert for the USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf) and this morning I got "Rumors from Uhuru about new film"! :rollhappy:

I realize that's Star Trek, but still...


----------

