!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
title/title
/head
body
Jerry Hoffmeister wrote:br
blockquote type="cite" cite="midGLfDa.14585$d51.64599@sccrnsc01"
pre wrap=""It's the second time this week I'm seeing the comment that Paphs are not
quite orchids (the other was in the Paph article in the latest Orchids I
think) - could you elaborate?

/pre
/blockquote
    Well... I don't have the primary reference material in front of
me.  But the general gist is that at both the phenotypic (what you see)
and genotypic (what the DNA looks like) level,  Cyps (including Paphs,
phrags, cyps, and selenopediums, probably) are sufficiently different
from the other 'true orchids' that they should be in their own group. 
The argument might be that if someone were to trip over a Paph.
rothschildianum on a Borneo mountaintop today, and that was the first
time that a paph had been described, it wouldn't be described as an
orchid.br
    br
        So, orchids and cypripediums diverged some substantial time ago
(megayears, in evolutionary terms), probably before the breakup of the
pangaean supercontinent (since they are everywhere).   According to the
NCBI (which isn't a taxonomic authority, and may not be completely up
on current subtleties), they are all (now) in the ordera title="order"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=73496&lvl=3&p= 17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1 &srchmode=1&unlock"strong
Asparagales/strong/a (including asparagus, agaves, onions, clivia, 
daffodils...), in the class a title="order"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=73496&lvl=3&p= 17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1 &srchmode=1&unlock"strong/strong/aa
title="class"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=4447&lvl=3&p=1 7&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1& amp;srchmode=1&unlock"strongLiliopsida/strong/a.
  a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158330&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongCypripedioide ae/strong/a
are still in the family a title="family"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=4747&lvl=3&p=1 7&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1& amp;srchmode=1&unlock"strongOrchidaceae/strong/a,
and share the same rank as the a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158332&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongEpidendroidea e/strong/a  
(most of the things you think of as orchids),  a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158331&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongOrchidoidea e/strong/a
(remarkably, most of the things you rarely think of, if you do at all),
and the Vanilloideae (tasty ice cream tribe).br
br
    If you are still with me, the cyps are pretty different from
cattleyas and phals.  Taxonomy is only a poor picture of real life,
drawn with a rather thick brush.  But horticulturally they are still
orchids.  And no orchid grower is going to say they aren't orchids.  So
I wouldn't worry about it.br
br
Robbr
pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"--
Rob's Rules: a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msu.edu/~halgren"http://www.msu.edu/~halgren/a
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit/pre
/body
/html