Name changes in the Cattleya Family

[SlipperFan]

I'm with you, Roy!

 

[PaphMadMan]

Really, once you see the cladograms and the logic behind where the lines need to be drawn, it's almost impossible to deny the conclusion.

Is there somewhere online to see the cladograms?

 

[labskaus]

Is there somewhere online to see the cladograms?

I'd also be interested to see any data newer than the ITS interspacer sequences from 2000. The fact that plastid sequence data have been announced and publication delayed since about 2000 doesn't shed a good light on those data, and/or the author team.

 

[PaphMadMan]

...Really, once you see the cladograms and the logic behind where the lines need to be drawn, it's almost impossible to deny the conclusion.

I was skeptical, but now that I've seen some publications (thanks Kavanaru) I have to agree. With data from six DNA regions that also agrees with traditional classification in a broad sense the conclusions are not likely to change, and a broadly defined Cattleya genus including Sophronitis and most of what we called Laelia is almost inevitable.

The taxonomists are just doing their job, and probably doing to well. How well the hybrid registrar is handling it is up for debate.

 

[labskaus]

I have to row back on my previous comment since I found the article by van den Berg et al. in Ann. Bot., May 7, 2009.

I also agree that the data look conclusive enough to create a broadly defined genus Cattleya. Still looks like Sophronitis cernua is not closely related to the other classical Sophronitis species. A few other species misbehave badly in this analysis and make it hard to keep a system closer to the tradition. I would have preferred to split and use the exisiting generic names for the subgroups, like Cattleya, Sophronitis (only for cernua, then), Brasilaelia (even Chironella), Hoffmannseggella, but I can live with the suggested Cattleya concept much better than with the previous Sophronitis misconcept.

Cheers,