Latest Taxonomic Changes

[emydura]

I'm an amateur grower. What I disagree with is the constant changing -- moving things into different genera and them moving them again. It seems that, just as you get used to certain names, they are changed again. If this is the last change that is made, I'll be very happy.

By the way, I know many professional growers, and I hear them complaining about the changes. It impacts them more than it does us amateurs. They have greenhouses full of plants they have to look up name changes. Changing tags take a lot of time and money -- something most commercial growers don't have these days.

I'm rather unhappy about the insinuations about "amateur growers."

Dot -I shouldn't have used the term "amateur growers". Non-Scientists was what I was inferring.

I don’t think there is any way of getting round the name changes. The names are meant to not only identify a plant but to also describe its relationship with other species/genera. As more information comes in and our understanding of the relationship between species grow, names will have to change to reflect this. If we were stuck with keeping the names that were first used we would still be calling Paphiopedilums by their initial classification of Cypripediums.

In the end taxonomists are basing their decision on science. I don’t think they should be making decisions based around the impact on orchid growers. If we aren’t happy with changing names then maybe us growers should start using common names instead. They don’t need to be changed. I don’t know the latin name of a giraffe, and that could change a 100 times, but a giraffe will always be a giraffe. Plants seem to be the only group where latin names are mostly used, I guess due to the sheer number of species involved. I prefer latin names myself but then I appreciate they are not cast in stone.

I’m not saying that I agree with the new changes described above. I don’t know enough about those groups to comment except the Phalaenopsis change which seems a good one. And if people want to argue the name changes based around science then that is great and legitimate. But I don’t agree that names should never change because it impacts on my hobby. Nor do I think it is fair to question the integrity of scientists by stating name changes are nothing but an attempt to promote their career. Their work has to be peer reviewed and their reputations are at stake. So they have to have a good solid foundation behind their decisions. The reputation of the science profession has never been as poor as it currently is due the divisive climate change debate. It would be nice if we didn’t add to it.

At the end of day, the names are being changed for a scientific purpose. There is no compulsion for us growers to change our labels. We will still know the plant you are talking about whichever name you use. In fact from a growers perspective it may be more informative to retain the old name.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

I really don't see the big deal. I can understand the annoyance of professional growers, especially those concerned with awards, but most of us here are horticulturists, not botanists or taxonomists. I have no problem intellectually with Neofinetia and Ascocentrum going into Vanda. I'll still keep the Neo name on my labels, because it simply clarifies just what type of of Vanda I have. If I ever grow them, I'll be happy to have the Ascocentrum name on a label for those little colorful Vandas, but I'm perfectly happy to throw out the "Ascda" label and just call those hybrids Vandas....if I ever grow them again. They are so easy and do so well for me, but take up so much space........

 

[goods]

I agree with everything you said. Amateur orchid growers will disagree with any change to what they know, so no matter how solid the scientific evidence is behind their taxonomic change, taxonomists will be unfairly criticised. An example would be the criticism of the splitting of the Dendrobium genera. When you see the huge differences in flower morphology and understand the reasons behind the split, the change is just common sense. But not to amateur orchid growers.

Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda.

Dendrobiums may be split because of different flower morphologies, but Neo. falcata is lumped based on similar vegetative characteristics (That was the last argument I heard...no idea if that's still correct.). Find me another "true Vanda that has a nectary like that, is night fragrant, white and moth pollinated, and I'll accept the lumping into Vanda. Throwing out decades of morphological evidence based solely on genetics isn't the way to go, in my opinion.

 

[emydura]

Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda.
n.

Absolutely, the main purpose of the latin nomenclature is to describe the evolutionary relationships between species which is why we keep seeing name changes over time. When our understanding of the relationships change so do the names. I don't know enough about the Vanda group so I don't have an opinion on this current change. No matter what method you use there is still a degree of subjectiveness regarding at what point do you split at, which is what causes the controversy. It all comes down to whether you are a splitter or clumper. I'm normally a cllumper but I thought the splitting of the Dendrobium genus made sense when it was explained to me.

 

[Ozpaph]

At the end of day, the names are being changed for a scientific purpose. There is no compulsion for us growers to change our labels. We will still know the plant you are talking about whichever name you use. In fact from a growers perspective it may be more informative to retain the old name.

Unfortunately that's not true. If you exhibit at orchid society meetings or shows there seems to be a requirement to ensure the 'genus' is correct and up-to-date - see all the printed 'corrections' in newsletters now-a-days.
Heaven help anyone wishing to get a 'Cattleya' awarded. It HAS to be botanically correct and that's nearly impossible for an 'amateur'.

 

[emydura]

Unfortunately that's not true. If you exhibit at orchid society meetings or shows there seems to be a requirement to ensure the 'genus' is correct and up-to-date - see all the printed 'corrections' in newsletters now-a-days.
Heaven help anyone wishing to get a 'Cattleya' awarded. It HAS to be botanically correct and that's nearly impossible for an 'amateur'.

When you enter a Dendrobium speciosum at our show it would have to be registered as a Thelychiton, but at the same time if it was to be considered for an award it would have to be judged under Dendrobium as that is how the NSW and AOC bodies still recognise it. So there must be some flexibility with the judging. Surely some common sense would prevail and officials would ensure that the orchids are judged under the appropriate name.

 

[li'l frog]

We're running into trouble distinguishing the need to register flowers to judge at shows, and the need to determine the relationship between orchid groups. For show judging, it would be insane to judge a Neo against a full-sized Vanda. I know that AOS is trying to conform to all the changes in nomenclature, but sometimes it's just not logical for judging, or for keeping pedigree records. Look at the mess Cattleya is in -- how is a Sophronitis flower to be compared to a huge BLC? I know some of the society groups (MAOC . .) are struggling with figuring out how to ribbon judge.

 

[PaphMadMan]

Isn't one of the goals of taxonomy to understand evolutionary relationships between species? When I look at the new Vanda, I see vastly different species with different flower morphologies all lumped into the same genus. In my opinion, it would make more sense to keep evolutionarily similar species in small genera within a large supergenera Vanda.

Dendrobiums may be split because of different flower morphologies, but Neo. falcata is lumped based on similar vegetative characteristics (That was the last argument I heard...no idea if that's still correct.). Find me another "true Vanda that has a nectary like that, is night fragrant, white and moth pollinated, and I'll accept the lumping into Vanda. Throwing out decades of morphological evidence based solely on genetics isn't the way to go, in my opinion.

Morphology can be misleading. Species adapted to similar pollinators can have visually similar flowers, but not necessarily be especially closely related evolutionarily, just for one example. A long spur is definitely an adaptation to a specific pollinator, but it might not match up with significant genetic differences. If you choose the wrong morphological characteristics you create artificial groupings, and the right characteristics aren't always the obvious plant and flower forms that the general public might notice.

A large genus can almost always be split, but if the genetic evidence for evolutionary relationships doesn't give you the same groupings that the traditional morphological characteristics give it might be better science to go with the large diverse genus. Neofinetia is physically distinctive but might not be genetically distinguishable. Without looking at the data I'm only guessing, but it could be that we would find even more objections if Vanda was divided genetically than by lumping all those species together.

 

[SlipperFan]

David, I'm not a scientist either, though I support science and scientists. They are discovering the secrets of the real world/universe, away from superstition and myth.

I'd like to put all the taxonomists in a room together, lock the door and tell them they cannot leave until they've all agreed, once and for all, on genera and species names. Then we can all change our tags, register our plants for shows, and be happy to know that we have the name controversy over with.

 

[Secundino]

Well, I am a scientist and amateur orchid grower as well. I have no problems in changing names and labels, I do remember synonyms and understand perfectly the grouping of related plants. Splitting of supergenera as Dendrobium, Bulbophyllum, Epidendrum, etc. makes sense and I don't even argue if it must be into new genera or just subgroups in one big.
But lumping together what can be and has been easily distinguished by eye-sight or morphologic studies in the past and in the present makes no sense whatever new methods of identification may appear. I just means the genetically they are really close - and not more. Phaenotype = genotype + environment. Mark this: in the future more subtile genetic understan ding will support the splitting of again in the same 'scientific' way as it did with the lumping.
No need to offend and oppose amateurs versus professionals, scientist vs non-scientist, taxonomists vs 'users'.
Everyone who has knowledge can get to valid conclusions.
Me, I see clear differences between Phal. amabilis, Phal. lindenii and Phal. japonica. You may use the generic names that you want.
Until you get to a show. (Hope you don't show hybrids!)

 

[em_tee_w]

I don't really care, but I do feel sorry for the people who have to update all of their records and labels with these changes. However, I liked the name Doritis, it makes me think of Doritos...

 

[Ozpaph]

However, I liked the name Doritis, it makes me think of Doritos...

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:

 

[emydura]

I'd like to put all the taxonomists in a room together, lock the door and tell them they cannot leave until they've all agreed, once and for all, on genera and species names. Then we can all change our tags, register our plants for shows, and be happy to know that we have the name controversy over with.

It might take a little while yet Dot. With new species still being discovered and the invent of genetic analysis, things are in a state of flux. But I'm sure there will come a time when there will be a general consensus and the classification of orchids will be settled. We probably won't be alive to see it though.

 

[PaphMadMan]

Even if it was possible for every expert to agree on every known genus and species designation today, science is always subject to new data and new interpretations, and all living populations are still evolving. There will always be changes.

Lets 'just pretend' that we already know everything that is and that ever can be? Is that really what anyone wants?

 

[SlipperFan]

...

Lets 'just pretend' that we already know everything that is and that ever can be? Is that really what anyone wants?

Only religion! :rollhappy:

 

[lepetitmartien]

Reminds me I've got a label to change… (sedirea)

 

[Roy]

Get them all into a room to agree. It would be like a committee to design a horse, they'd come up with a camel.

 

[Ozpaph]

Get them all into a room to agree. It would be like a committee to design a horse, they'd come up with a camel.

more like a kangaroo!:rollhappy::rollhappy:

 

[s1214215]

I probably wouldn't mind so much if some of these changes made sense. The argument put forward of plants not needing to resemble each other to be in the same genus is a little off for me. And to say that plants that cant or can barely breed with each other are in the same genus again doesn't sit well. An example: Sedirea doesn't look like a phal to me and only breeds with phals with considerable difficulty.

I have spoken to two plant molecular scientists I know and they have said that there is disagreement amongst them and their thinking is that these name changes wont hold, and will get changed again as the field of study is refined.

It has been said there is pettiness when it comes to this renaming with certain identities seeking accolade and attention. The renaming of the Australian Dendrobiums is a case, where it has been said it that was set to go ahead until certain people got their noses out of joint because they were not getting any of the credit.

I spent 7 years studying and working with academics. I learnt fast that getting papers published, and their names on them was paramount. That an academic tagging his/her name to someone else's work happens, and the petty rivalry abound. And that researchers can often provide the answers that their employers want to hear (happens in government a lot LOL). I rather like this cartoon below for its relativity to the argument.

 

[s1214215]