Rob Griesbach says (I am paraphrasing) we probably will never see a pure
Phal violacea awarded again because the flower size of the species is very
small. There are some HUGE violacea clones out there but, he says, they
were outcrossed with Phal bellina when it was still called P. violacea var.
borneo. This variety or species (Whatever you want to call it) has a flower
almost twice size of the species violacea right off the tree of an adjacent
island. After some size was bred into it, then the solid color was bred
back into the resulting strain over several more generations. The true
violacea are just a little larger than an american quarter. Those labled as
violacea that are larger than that by nearly double that size are probably
Phal. Samera (violacea x bellina)

Now, the larger flowered violacea cultivars MAY be awarded as Phal violacea
somewhere in the future, but following the above logic and accepting the
split between the two forms, they are not pure Phal violacea. As delcolja's
C. (or) G. aurantiaca said, "So What?" Well, here's a what....Even more
than just being able to talk about a plant and have people know which you
mean, to some it may be important to know what is in the background of their
hybrids, and it gets harder and harder if the names change every half decade
to know just what you have and predict what a mating might produce. Phal
Grosbeak is a good example. From the single award description, you can kind
see that somewhere in the grex tree, one or more of those violaceas HAD TO
BE what we know call Phal bellina. But when it was registered it wasn't.
And that's an easy example. The grex registry is littered with errors that
were literally created by taxonomic changes after the fact.

In the small favors department, we should all be glad that (apparently)
Guarianthe and Cattleya both have the same Latin gender, otherwise we'd all
have to slowly adjust, not only to the new genus name at the front of the
binomial but to a new spelling at the end of it.

And as for Doritis being a Phal, I still have no idea how the registrar is
going to deal with that knot. I haven't noticed any new Doritis hybrids
registered as Phals yet but if the RHS orchid registrar is following Kew's
checklist,... :-D...(and it would be a wacky world if they weren't).... then
it should happen eventually.

And you know it only gets worse (depending on where you stand) as genetics
plays an ever larger role in determining the relationship among species. It
looks like the Guarianthe speration was genetically motivated.

And now for an OT supposition: Take a look at your grex-registry-of-choice
and look up Phal Grosbeak to see who registered it. Then wonder outloud
while stroking your chin in a Jon Steward kind of way, "What appellation
could the kids in that poor guy's grade school have used to taunt him on the
play ground? hummmm.

Al
P.S. how come everybody else's doppleganger gets it's own email address and
I have to share mine with mine?


"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
news:VTmPg.2139$W13.179@trnddc05...
Diana,

I don't change the labels anymore. Some taxonomist in the future will be
working on his PhD and move them back to Cattleya.

Look at poor Doritis, Eric Christenson put it back into Phalaenopsis over
5
years ago. Even Phal violacea was made bellina. A couple of weeks ago I
still asked Al if the violacea that I was buying from him was the
blue/purple violacea or an off color bellina.

If they didn't change the names it wouldn't give us anything to talk
about.

Good growing,
Gene


"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
news
Have you seen the current issue of Orchids? Have you? Did you know that
aurantiaca and skinneri are no longer Cattleyas? Huh? Huh? Ditto
bowringiana.

And on pg. 659 - top right photo and lower half of the page - what kind
of
labeling is that?

"Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya) x guatemalensis 'Barbara Sullivan' CCM/AOS
(skinneri x aurantiaca)"

And on pg 661, they identify bowringiana in one picture as "C." and in
the
one below as Guarianthe (syn. Cattleya).

This is getting stupid.

Diana