There was a story, told a few years ago by somebody (Christenson?) about
how virtually all of the 'standard' type Dtps (the ones that look like
standard phals) were descended from effectively one 'Dtps' parent. And
no, I can't remember the name, and don't have time to look it up right
now, maybe somebody else knows. Anyway, when he went back to look at
that parent, it turns out that it had been misregistered as a
doritaenopsis, when it was really 100% phalaenopsis. Hence, most of the
Dtps. in the world today would be Phal., regardless of classification
issues. Also, when does the 'original sin' of having a doritis parent
wear off? The answer is never, according to the registrars, at least.
Most of the standard Dtps. are at least 6 generations removed from any
direct influence of the species. There ain't much Doritis in a
doritaenopsis. You can tell a 'true' doritaenopsis by its upright
flower spike and smallish flowers (Think Dtps. Talitha Klehm, or Dtps.
Firecracker).
I don't think I buy that the differences between phal and doritis are
significant enough to warrant separate genera, but then again, IANAT (I
am not a taxonomist), and if I were, I would be a 'lumper' not a
'splitter'. Christenson's argument in his Phalaenopsis monograph is
reasonably convincing, especially if you take it in the context of his
other revisions. Quite frankly, given his apparent tendency to split
species and create new genera given rather minute differences (again,
IANAT) I find the fact that he wants to join these two concepts together
to be quite a solid argument. If he can't justify splitting them,
nobody can. Then again, I'm a lumper and proud of it.
Rob
Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!
The taxonomy world is a strange one with mob rule. There is no committee
which reviews and votes on suggested reclassification, instead a change is
suggested in a publication and if people like it over time it will take. In
Christenson's Phalaenopsis monograph he suggested that Doritis should be
reclassified as a Phalaenopsis. The person who told you it has been
reclassified has accepted Christenson's work. I have heard others say that
the differences between a Phal and a Doritis are greater than the
differences between a Cattleya and Laelia and they are not accepting the
suggested change. It will take years for it all to play out. Until then
pick a side and label your plants as you wish. RHS orchid registration will
take much longer to change even if the reclassification is accepted by the
general orchid community. Orchid crosses involving pulcherrima will be
registered as Doritis crosses with the RHS for many years into the future.
Pat Brennan
--
Rob's Rules:
http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
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