No more Neofinetia, now Vanda

[Roy]

After learning of changes to the Vanda section indicated that Neofinetia had now been renamed as a Vanda. The link provided shows the changes including Ascocentrums & others to be named Vanda.

http://www.windsororchidsociety.ca/...mbinations_in_the_genus_vanda_orchidaceae.pdf

 

[gonewild]

The world is loosing more species to Taxonomists than to habit destruction.

 

[Cheyenne]

You have got to be kidding me. Why don't we just loose al the names and just put them in one broad category? We could just call them orchids! That would make the taxonomy a little easier, after all they are all related in some way. :rollhappy::clap::sob:

 

[John Boy]

My idea would be to rename the Taxonomists as USELESS and send them all off to Sibiria to find new Species of moss under the snow in winter. I'm not having it, and I'm not changing a single lable!

 

[Erythrone]

Taxonomists are not doing this just for fun...

 

[gonewild]

Taxonomists are not doing this just for fun...

Not for fun?
They get paid to do what they like to do.
Sounds like fun to me.

They do it for fun.....there is no other reason to rename species.

 

[nikv]

I'll continue to call then Neos. This was about as bad of an idea as moving most of the Laelias to the genus Sophronitis. Taxonomists shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.

 

[biothanasis]

My idea would be to rename the Taxonomists as USELESS and send them all off to Sibiria to find new Species of moss under the snow in winter. I'm not having it, and I'm not changing a single lable!

I really enjoyed your post...hehehehe!!

 

[silence882]

The taxonomists are changing the generic name of the non-Vanda species so that the genus Vanda makes more sense as an evolutionary unit. They are not just doing this 'for fun'.

In the phylogenetic classification of organisms, a genus, or any other taxonomic group (family, class, order, etc.), needs to be composed of all the species derived from a single common ancestor. All these scientists are saying is that the way that makes most sense evolutionarily speaking is to include all these species under a single genus, Vanda.

If orchid growers and other people in the horticultural trade keep using the currently common generic names, the taxonomists are not going to care. If the new classification is generally accepted in the scientific community, the taxonomists will just regard the horticultural names as synonyms.

There's really no need for a conflict, here.

--Stephen

 

[Tom499]

I completely agree, silence 882.

Taxa have to be revised as new evidence becomes available.

 

[John Boy]

Stephen, I'm getting your point. Only: I'm not buying into what they do, and I don't care if they'd want to come up with a new idea in 6 months, wanting to call the whole thing Cattleya, because some gen-research has brought up the fact that Vandas are early, very basic forms of Cattleyas.

And when it comes to Neos: They should just and simply stay away. If anything, it should be in japanese hands, to alter things..., and not up to some 23 year old kid who has no idea about what Neos involve.

 

[Erythrone]

The taxonomists are changing the generic name of the non-Vanda species so that the genus Vanda makes more sense as an evolutionary unit. They are not just doing this 'for fun'.

In the phylogenetic classification of organisms, a genus, or any other taxonomic group (family, class, order, etc.), needs to be composed of all the species derived from a single common ancestor. All these scientists are saying is that the way that makes most sense evolutionarily speaking is to include all these species under a single genus, Vanda.

If orchid growers and other people in the horticultural trade keep using the currently common generic names, the taxonomists are not going to care. If the new classification is generally accepted in the scientific community, the taxonomists will just regard the horticultural names as synonyms.

There's really no need for a conflict, here.

--Stephen

I agree!!

 

[SlipperFan]

Iti's not just Neos that are affected...

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over this....I love taxonomy. It's one of the most fascinating aspects of biology to me, because it is simply a means of marking the pathway of evolution. As such, there will always be changes, as new genetic info is found that alters or even confirms earlier ideas about classification. But I am also an orchid hobbyist. I see no conflict in keeping the older labels on my plants that are familiar to me. If taxonomists now see Neofinetia as a Vanda, fine with me. If they have the evidence, I am willing to go along with their ideas. As a hobbyist, my Neos are still Neos. Vanda's are the big plants that look nice and are easy to grow and take up too much space for me to grow more than 2. Neo's are the fragrant ones that are not so easy to grow, but so small that I can collect a bunch. The fact is that there is TAXONOMY, the science, based on evolutionary relationships and descent. Then there is simple classification, which is descriptive. I use both, and believe in both, as they are applied differently. Case in point: In high school, many of us learned about the 5 kingdoms. Protists were the unicellular Eukaryotes. Now, there are 3 domains, a much larger category containing the kingdoms. Most kingdoms, such as Plantae, are still the same. But the Protists no longer exist...no single line of descent, but multiple lines. Scientifically, protists no longer exist, and scientists can't decide on how many kingdoms to replace them with. But what do you call an organism that fits the description of single celled Eukaryote? Why, protist, of course.

 

[Ozpaph]

It's one of the most fascinating aspects of biology to me, because it is simply a means of marking the pathway of evolution. .

So if I'm a creationist I can ignore this 'memo'?

 

[abax]

I think genetic research is enormously valuable, but I don't have to bring it into my greenhouse to enjoy my orchids.
Eric, I think you have updated "knickers in a twist".

 

[bullsie]

So if I'm a creationist I can ignore this 'memo'?

I love it!!!

You know, I think the next time I'd like to know the parentage of my orchids I'm going to skip the RHS registry and go straight to the taxonomists for the info. And don't be telling me to go to the breeder or seller either! The tag has the name and that REALLY should be all I need to go by. oke:

 

[JeanLux]

Imo, it is not getting easier for RHS trying to synchronize old and new 'names' ! When I am looking for parentage of my SLC Jewel Box, I do not want to hear where I would have to look for finding it with the 'new name' !!!! But as long as old and 'new' will coexcist it's ok for me! Jean

 

[Paph_LdyMacBeth]

...Can we put Masdevallias back together please!!!
LOL

I'd be happy to call neo's vandas...at least I can keep it all straight!
Its like calling things "cattleya type plant" oh man did that get me in s**t

Sent from my BlackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk

 

[fbrem]

I completely agree, silence 882.

Taxa have to be revised as new evidence becomes available.

Bam, I'll second that. I for one prefer to unite groups that obviously share a recent common ancestor.