# Naming [just being b_tchy!]



## NYEric (Feb 15, 2008)

I don't know about everyone else but I find the latest round of re-naming orchids is a little bit out of control. Two very numerous families of orchids, Cattleyas, and Pleurothallids, are being totally jumbled. I can understand that to make differentiation of species more distinct this was necessary but I don't really see the need as new species aren't being identified just families broken up separately.  I'm going to continue using the old general names as long as possible. JMO!! Sorry to waste your time.


----------



## Candace (Feb 15, 2008)

I don't know anyone who's changed their tags, yet. This does bring up something, though. For those of you who've had recent society shows, did you change classification names, stick with the previous years system? Our show is in April and I suspect our OS won't be changing any names, but I was curious how other groups were dealing with this issue come show time.


----------



## Elena (Feb 15, 2008)

I bought a Sophronitis purpurata var. werkhauseri the other week. Sounds wrong, somehow.


----------



## charlie c (Feb 15, 2008)

NYEric,

FWIW. One of the orchids I started with years ago was tagged, when I bought it: Epidendrum cochleatum. Then it became: Encyclia cochleata. Then for a while it was: Encyclia lancifolia. Then it went full circle and became Epidendrum cochleatum again. And the flavor of the day now is: Anacheilium cochleatum. 

Simply because someone SUGGESTS a name change doesn't mean it's carved in stone. If enough folks agree with the reasoning for the change, then it becomes common usage. If enough don't, it falls by the wayside.

charlie c


----------



## NYEric (Feb 15, 2008)

That's a perfect example of people w/ too much time on their hands! Acronia my @$$!


----------



## charlie c (Feb 15, 2008)

NYEric said:


> That's a perfect example of people w/ too much time on their hands! Acronia my @$$!



Or maybe just trying to put "pork chops on the platter".

charlie c


----------



## rdlsreno (Feb 15, 2008)

Taxonomist need money and that the only way they can.

Ramon


----------



## Scooby5757 (Feb 15, 2008)

charlie c said:


> Or maybe just trying to put "pork chops on the platter".
> 
> charlie c



I wish they'd just eat a salad instead.


----------



## JeanLux (Feb 16, 2008)

Elena said:


> I bought a Sophronitis purpurata var. werkhauseri the other week. Sounds wrong, somehow.



This is for me the most frustrating example!! The nice tall braz. white and pink Lealias and the lovely tiny reddish Sophronitis: this is how I got to know them in the last 20 years! Are there visibly so many common characteristics??!! 
If there had to be reclassification, I would rather be able to follow the Chadwicks proposal to name them Cattleya (in their book: the classic Cattleyas).

What can be the basic drive for all those analyses, that bring these reclassifications? I hope it is not only for having one's name attached to some orchid's one. In my eyes the approach is not appropriate to bring clarification and more simple structuring in the today's jungle of orchid names!

Eric, thanks for triggering this thread! It is interesting to read yours all opinion of this ??nonsense??
Jean


----------



## Sue (Feb 16, 2008)

I'm always interested and excited to learn about new theories of proper taxonomic divisions, especially as we are now able to use chromosomal information in a systematic way to discover flawed assumptions emerging from phylogeny and morphogeny.

I agree with charlie c above. Just because the taxonomists suggest a name change does not mean you have to care. Similarly, I don't think we have any right to complain either.

The plants aren't merely our domain, and they're not merely the taxonomists' either. I value the taxonomists' work because I find taxonomy to be interesting, and enjoy learning as much as I can about the natural divisions and relationships between species. However, if we let them dictate horticultural proper usage, it leads to constant frustration and confusion. But it's just as clearly mistaken for us to tell them to stop striving towards a more refined, complete, and exact scientific treatment of these plants because doing so complicates our separate goals as breeders, growers, and judges.


----------



## Rick (Feb 16, 2008)

I agree with you to a large extant Sue, but I get frustrated with taxonomy when renaming is a matter of politics and history (rather than science). The "who named it first" issue.

I don't know if its worse with plants than other taxa, but having non-descriptive names (i.e. after people) may encourage this.


----------



## Sue (Feb 16, 2008)

Yes, certainly. Actually, I'm bothered by non-descriptive names quite in general. I hope the scientific community decides to use Phrag. peruviana rather than Phrag. kovachii . . . but more to the point, why is Cattleya percivaliana named for two rich white Englishmen (William Cattley and R.P. Percival)? This self-congratulatory and Eurocentric practice is offensive, and does not lead to good science. Most emblematic of this, to me, is Neofinetia. A plant with a long history in cultivation, having a prominent cultural role in a long-established civilization, was named for a French botanist (Achille Finet). I'm sure these folks were, by and large, perfectly nice, and did good work, but I just find this unbelievably disrespectful.

Um. Anyway. I guess the short version of that was "Yes, Rick, I'm with you on that. Plus, I am very angry about it."


----------



## Rick (Feb 16, 2008)

Sue said:


> Plus, I am very angry about it."



I hope you've at least had your first cup of coffee on this wonderful Saturday morning before this engaging discussion of taxonomy. Now go smell your echinolabium for a new perspective on the day:evil:


----------



## MoreWater (Feb 16, 2008)

Interesting discussion. I'm just now realizing that I'm rather illogical about this whole issue and it can get my blood pressure up. :rollhappy: I find it extremely annoying to have nothogenera names derived from anything other than the names of the genera making up the nothog. OTOH, I can roll with reclassification of the genus, but I get really annoyed if the species name changes... even though there may be good (or even better) reasons for the change in the species name. 

My current annoyance is that one of my favorites, Pleurothallis oxios, doesn't exist. Andy now has it as Pl. minutalis. Kew monocots has Pl minutalis -> Anathallis minutalis, but no mention of Pl oxios as even an unaccepted name. Pleurothallids.com does not list Anathallis as a pleurothallid or as an ex-pleurothallid, and it has no listing for Pl minutalis or Pl oxios. My brain has only so many categories for these plants, and if it doesn't fit under pleuro (albeit it was at best and exceptional pleuro), I might have a meltdown. :evil:


----------



## lindafrog (Feb 16, 2008)

Just a thought-- have you noticed when something is reclassified the newer name is always longer and harder if not impossible to pronounce.
No matter what they are called orchids are pretty flowers meant to be enjoyed.
Lindafrog in snowland


----------

