I have not read Christenson's arguments for lumping Doritis and
Phalaenopsis, and I've heard of genetic and cladistic arguments.
However, I have also seen that when you have a Dtps that's only got a
few generations of breeding, often, the Doritis heritage is obvious.
Whether it deserves its own genus...I don't know.... Remember also that
taxonomy is inherently a human and subjective endeavor. Just how much
genetic similarity constitutes a genus? Who decides? Why? We're
trying to fit the spectrum of mother nature into a humanly contrived
discrete system here, and it just doesn't always work. I'm also part of
a lepidoptera discussion groups, and they have like 10 times the number
of problems w/ this as orchid taxnomists.

Cheers,
Xi

David Edgley wrote:

So does this mean that the RHS is accepting Phal pulcherrima for
registration instead of Doritis pulcherrima? What if I want to register a
Dtps Taisuco Firebird cross - is it now Phal Taisuco Firebird?

David

"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news:s29Pe.301513$5V4.252457@pd7tw3no...

To quote Rob Halgren:

"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."

Cheers,
Xi

David Edgley wrote:

Folks,

I come seeking knowledge. Call me Rip Van Winkle or worse but somehow I
missed the debate about Doritis being reclassified as Phalaenopsis. To
all who know and care about such things, what is going on here? Are all
of my Dtps now Phals? Should my Dor pulcherrima be retagged Phal
pulcherrima? Is the RHS OK with this? Please enlighten me.

Many thanks,

David