# are slipper orchids really orchids?



## likespaphs (Jul 11, 2011)

i've heard the argument that if the slippers were discovered today, they are different enough in some areas that they probably would not be considered orchids.
of course i have nothing to show to elaborate on this but does anyone have some concrete facts on this or thoughts?


----------



## emydura (Jul 11, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> i've heard the argument that if the slippers were discovered today, they are different enough in some areas that they probably would not be considered orchids.
> of course i have nothing to show to elaborate on this but does anyone have some concrete facts on this or thoughts?



I have heard that too. That some taxonomists don't consider Paphs to be orchids. Interested as well in what others have to say.

David


----------



## Shiva (Jul 11, 2011)

You will always find experts contradicting other experts no matter what the issue is. Look at any trial, there are experts for the Defence and experts for the Prosecution, all arriving at opposite conclusions with the same facts. 
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. :snore:


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> i've heard the argument that if the slippers were discovered today, they are different enough in some areas that they probably would not be considered orchids.
> of course i have nothing to show to elaborate on this but does anyone have some concrete facts on this or thoughts?


That argument is as old as 1831 or 1833 (I forget which) ... John Lindley separated them as a autonomous genus in Nixus Plantarum. But again (the old story) there are no rules were to draw the line in plant taxonomy.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 11, 2011)

Sounds stupid to me!


----------



## Marc (Jul 11, 2011)

I sign on for the: I've heard that story as well club


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

Why would that sound stupid ? .... we separate genera and species on much smaller differences ... Dahlgren et al, and Vermeulen didn't find it stupid ... and neither do I ... then "Orchids" will be Orchidales and there will be three families (a) Aspostasieae with three fertile anthers, (b) Cypripedieae with two fertile anthers, and (c) Orchidaceae with one fertile anther. 

Its like women ... blondes, brunettes, redheads ... but they are all women ...

all you do is change the levels, nothing more ...


----------



## Rick (Jul 11, 2011)

I think another possible split would be with groups that have separate male and female flowers (like Catesetum) since one basic premise of what makes an orchid an orchid is that the male/female parts fused into a single structure (the column). So wouldn't that make the Catesetum flower an exception to the rule?

Maybe you can tell me Guido. Are Dimorphicus (lowii) flowers single sex or just differentially fertile for other reasons?


----------



## Kavanaru (Jul 11, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think another possible split would be with groups that have separate male and female flowers (like Catesetum) since one basic premise of what makes an orchid an orchid is that the male/female parts fused into a single structure (the column). So wouldn't that make the Catesetum flower an exception to the rule?
> 
> Maybe you can tell me Guido. Are Dimorphicus (lowii) flowers single sex or just differentially fertile for other reasons?



not really, as teh point is that the male/female flowers of catasetinae are not true male or female flowers... basically, one of the sexes is just... hhhmmm... have forgotten the terminoloy in english... let's say not developed... 

from time to time, however, you get flowers ith both male and female viable characters, and or anything in between...


----------



## Lanmark (Jul 11, 2011)

Ah  this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, yet I can't seem to resist saying it...

All this "scientific" binomial nomenclature, ever-changing and ever-confusing, and yet a Fuukiran is always a Fuukiran. :evil: oke: 

:wink:


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think another possible split would be with groups that have separate male and female flowers (like Catesetum) since one basic premise of what makes an orchid an orchid is that the male/female parts fused into a single structure (the column). So wouldn't that make the Catesetum flower an exception to the rule?
> 
> Maybe you can tell me Guido. Are Dimorphicus (lowii) flowers single sex or just differentially fertile for other reasons?


I am afraid I can't agree with that, because those cases are just exceptions, whereas ALL slippers have two fertile anthers.


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think another possible split would be with groups that have separate male and female flowers (like Catesetum) since one basic premise of what makes an orchid an orchid is that the male/female parts fused into a single structure (the column). So wouldn't that make the Catesetum flower an exception to the rule?
> 
> Maybe you can tell me Guido. Are Dimorphicus (lowii) flowers single sex or just differentially fertile for other reasons?


And of course, one can control what flowers wil be produced by changing the cultural conditions ... and that is not the case with the slippers,


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

Lanmark said:


> Ah  this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, yet I can't seem to resist saying it...
> 
> All this "scientific" binomial nomenclature, ever-changing and ever-confusing, and yet a Fuukiran is always a Fuukiran. :evil: oke:
> 
> :wink:


Well yes ... an apple is always an apple, even if you call it a cherry ... but binominal nomenclature is the best there is. There has been many systems ... but they all disappeared because they did not work. Binominal nomenclature does work, and it is the "systematics" that causes problems as no-one is able to define a plant species ... but that does not change anything to binominal nomenclature. Just don't get the two confused.


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

About the "dimorphicus" flowers: In my opinion they are just a variation on the theme ... but I must admit that I have never looked into that specific problem.


----------



## emydura (Jul 11, 2011)

Shiva said:


> You will always find experts contradicting other experts no matter what the issue is. Look at any trial, there are experts for the Defence and experts for the Prosecution, all arriving at opposite conclusions with the same facts.
> I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. :snore:



I don't think anyone is losing sleep over this. It is just an interesting topic. Whether a Paphiopedilum is an orchid or not isn't that important to me. Obviously taxonomists in the past have had differing views on the taxonomy of Paphs. I'm still not clear on why they did not consider Paphs to be orchids. I remember being told that it was believed Paphs were much more closely related to a non-orchid genera. I can't tremember which, but it was a common garden/vegetable plant.

David


----------



## Rick (Jul 11, 2011)

Kavanaru said:


> not really, as teh point is that the male/female flowers of catasetinae are not true male or female flowers... basically, one of the sexes is just... hhhmmm... have forgotten the terminoloy in english... let's say not developed...
> 
> from time to time, however, you get flowers ith both male and female viable characters, and or anything in between...



Ok I can go for that.


----------



## Lanmark (Jul 11, 2011)

Braem said:


> Well yes ... an apple is always an apple, even if you call it a cherry ... but binominal nomenclature is the best there is. There has been many systems ... but they all disappeared because they did not work. Binominal nomenclature does work, and it is the "systematics" that causes problems as no-one is able to define a plant species ... but that does not change anything to binominal nomenclature. Just don't get the two confused.



Agreed. Binomial nomenclature is the best there is. Some of us around here, however, recently got called to task by another member for using the term Fuukiran instead of leading with the name Neofinetia falcata in our posts. We were accused of using poor form. I'm just being an obstinate old mule in making my point that the term Fuukiran has been in use since before the time binomial nomenclature was invented, and the term Fuukiran is still in use today. It still means the same thing it always meant. The Meikan system is still going strong too. It classifies all the variations within this one single species quite nicely. :wink: Feel free to ignore me as I make my point which is clearly out of context with the rest of this thread. 
My apologies.  I'll shut up now. My intent is not to hijack this thread.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, I was talking to a Cyp. arietinum once and it told it me that he definitely WASN'T an orchid. So...


----------



## paphioboy (Jul 11, 2011)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Well, I was talking to a Cyp. arietinum once and it told it me that he definitely WASN'T an orchid. So...



I concur... :rollhappy: Who cares whether they are orchids or not? They've got all of us hooked for life... Pesonally I think they're veggies from outer space...


----------



## cnycharles (Jul 11, 2011)

paphioboy said:


> I concur... :rollhappy: Who cares whether they are orchids or not? They've got all of us hooked for life... Pesonally I think they're veggies from outer space...



actually from what I've seen, we're the vegetables...


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 11, 2011)

emydura said:


> ...I remember being told that it was believed Paphs were much more closely related to a non-orchid genera. I can't tremember which, but it was a common garden/vegetable plant.
> 
> David



Asparagus.


----------



## Shiva (Jul 11, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Asparagus.



Yeah, I can see the similarities...


----------



## emydura (Jul 11, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Asparagus.



Thanks Dot. That is the one. It is hard to see the relationship but I have yet to here an explanation of the links. I'd be interested to know if there are current taxonomists that believe this or if it was just the view back in 1830. 

Maybe I should try and eat a Paph. If it tastes as bad as asparagas then I could be convinced. 

David


----------



## quietaustralian (Jul 12, 2011)

emydura said:


> Thanks Dot. That is the one. It is hard to see the relationship but I have yet to here an explanation of the links. I'd be interested to know if there are current taxonomists that believe this or if it was just the view back in 1830.
> 
> Maybe I should try and eat a Paph. If it tastes as bad as asparagas then I could be convinced.
> 
> David



Paph helenae are ok in a salad but I wouldn't eat them every day. delicatum may be better but I'm yet to taste this delicacy. 

Mick


----------



## paphioboy (Jul 12, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> Paph helenae are ok in a salad but I wouldn't eat them every day. delicatum may be better but I'm yet to taste this delicacy.
> 
> Mick



  :crazy: 



> Maybe I should try and eat a Paph. If it tastes as bad as asparagas then I could be convinced.



That's because you haven't been cooking asparagus correctly...  oke: asparagus.. yum!


----------



## emydura (Jul 12, 2011)

paphioboy said:


> That's because you haven't been cooking asparagus correctly... oke: asparagus.. yum!



So do you dip it in chocolate, cover it in breadcrumbs and deep fry it. That should hopefully remove the asparagus flavour. oke:

I even lived with a person who had a pot specifically designed to cook asparagus. It didn't make it taste any better. 

David


----------



## Lanmark (Jul 12, 2011)

Michigan purple asparagus is the best! Steam it. Serve with melted butter, salt and black pepper. Mmmmm!


----------



## Pete (Jul 12, 2011)

Rick as far as i know Dimorphorchis have two perfect flowers. on lowii for example there is a yellow flower with stigma and pollen and a red flower with stigma and pollen. they are slightly differently formed and colored but as far as i know they are perfect flowers.


----------



## valenzino (Jul 12, 2011)

Pete said:


> Rick as far as i know Dimorphorchis have two perfect flowers. on lowii for example there is a yellow flower with stigma and pollen and a red flower with stigma and pollen. they are slightly differently formed and colored but as far as i know they are perfect flowers.



exactely,big difference is that the first flower attract pollinator with smell,the others with colour....
another strange flowering of that area is Grammatophyllum kinabaluensis,that have always the first flower deformed...


----------



## NYEric (Jul 12, 2011)

Braem said:


> Why would that sound stupid ? .... we separate genera and species on much smaller differences ... Dahlgren et al, and Vermeulen didn't find it stupid ... and neither do I ... then "Orchids" will be Orchidales and there will be three families (a) Aspostasieae with three fertile anthers, (b) Cypripedieae with two fertile anthers, and (c) Orchidaceae with one fertile anther.
> 
> Its like women ... blondes, brunettes, redheads ... but they are all women ...
> 
> all you do is change the levels, nothing more ...



When I was taught the definition of what is an orchid there were characteristics that were supposed to be identifiers, 6 flower parts, pollonia instead of pollen, vascular leaf structures, etc... if these characteristics are present then it's an orchid, if there are additional traits, still an orchid. if the basic requirements are not there...not an orchid! If you get to find differences within those categories that doesn't preclude the plant from still being an orchid. Therefore the arguement is stupid, in my opinion.


----------



## Braem (Jul 12, 2011)

NYEric said:


> When I was taught the definition of what is an orchid there were characteristics that were supposed to be identifiers, 6 flower parts, pollonia instead of pollen, vascular leaf structures, etc... if these characteristics are present then it's an orchid, if there are additional traits, still an orchid. if the basic requirements are not there...not an orchid! If you get to find differences within those categories that doesn't preclude the plant from still being an orchid. Therefore the arguement is stupid, in my opinion.


Well, that is what you and some others accept ... others don't ... see vermeulen and Dahlgren et al.

I don't need to have slippers taken out of the "orchids" ... and all I say and have ever said, that one can argue that slippers should be a separate family. And I would not consider John Lindley, Vermeulen, Dahlgren, Clifford, Yeo and some other professional botanists (including myself) as having stupid ideas. Just because an idea is not generally accepted does not mean that it is bad or stupid ... 
Just get a copy of _The Families of the Monocotyledons,_ (Springer 1985) and there you can read a very argumentation PRO three different families. And you should also read P. Vermeulen's_ The System of the Orchidales_ (Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 15: 224-253) before calling the idea "stupid"


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jul 12, 2011)

...then I asked an Apostasia if he was an orchid and he said definitely not. Then it reminded me he was a hermaphrodite. We need a better pronoun for that class of beings.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 13, 2011)

Braem said:


> ..And I would not consider John Lindley, Vermeulen, Dahlgren, Clifford, Yeo and some other professional botanists (including myself) as having stupid ideas.





NYEric said:


> Therefore the *arguement* is stupid, in my opinion.



No, I never said having the idea is stupid. However investing energy in the argument that slippers are not orchids would be a waste of my time.


----------



## Hakone (Jul 13, 2011)

If paphiopedilum would not be considered orchids. CITES can be disposed in the garbage pail.


----------



## Braem (Jul 13, 2011)

NYEric said:


> No, I never said having the idea is stupid. However investing energy in the argument that slippers are not orchids would be a waste of my time.


I agree on the fact that the argument is purely academic


----------



## Braem (Jul 13, 2011)

Hakone said:


> If paphiopedilum would not be considered orchids. CITES can be disposed in the garbage pail.


Oh No ... I had that idea already 25 years ago ... If Slippers would no longer be "Orchids" those Cites mafioso would simply put an addition to cites ti include the slippers again. They may be crooks, but they are not that stupid.


----------



## valenzino (Jul 13, 2011)

Braem said:


> Oh No ... I had that idea already 25 years ago ... If Slippers would no longer be "Orchids" those Cites mafioso would simply put an addition to cites ti include the slippers again. They may be crooks, but they are not that stupid.



Agree,and maybe in worst way!!!


----------

