I'll let you tell O'Byrne that
K

"Ray B" wrote in message
...
I like to consider those with "daisy-like" umbels to be the cirro's, while
the rest are bulbo's.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
AFAIK they are all Bulbos. According to Peter O'Byrne Cirropetalum was
never validly published way back when, so the name is invalid. Where
this puts Siegerist's book and her further splits I have no idea. Best
to check with IPNI for those splits. Christenson says the IPNI system for
naming is more up to date than others. Or he likes it better.

That said, if you are looking to enter something for AOS judging I think
it may be best to go with the Kew name becasue the AOS decided to accept
Kew's taxonomy because - I guess - they need someone to step up and be
the authority. Tap tap no erasees.

This is where (in my humble opinion) OW is indispensable. Synonyms are
all there and easy to get to. (I have no affiliation with OW other than
a few crappy photos in their data base. I pay for it just like everyone
else)

****

I found Peter O'Byrne's comment to me when I asked this question on the
OGD some years ago:
"K Barrett asked:


"I understand Cirropetalums have been moved back to Bulbophyllum. Is
that so? And who was the taxonomic authority who moved them and how
accepted was the change? The reason I ask is because I have Sigreist's
book, ....."


Kathy,


I hope you're not hoping to trigger-off a flame-session, because
questions like this can lead to vitriolic arguments.


The answer to your Q is that no taxonomic authority moved
Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum. The transfer isn't necessary.


You asked the wrong question. In my opinion, you would have done
better to question the taxonomic authority of those who tried to
separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum in the first place. And
therein lies a long and convoluted story. I'll try to shorten it.


Both Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalum are very old names; Bulbophyllum
was established by Thouars in 1822, Cirrhopetalum by Lindley in 1824.
Initially, it was easy to keep the two genera separate, but as more
and more species were added, it became clear that separation could not
be maintained, and the two genera were merged. At this point,
Cirrhopetalum (being the younger name) was reduced either to a synonym
of Bulbophyllum, or (more usually) to a section inside Bulbophyllum,
or (sometimes) to a subgenus under Bulbophyllum.


There have been repeated attempts to re-establish Cirrhopetalum as a
genus. They have all failed in the long run. In some highly
authoritative cases (like Rudolph Schlechter), the author(s) initially
treated Cirrhopetalum as a genus, but as they became more familiar
with the range of species that need to be taken into consideration,
reluctantly abandoned the concept of a "genus" Cirrhopetalum and
switched to using Bulbophyllum instead. For a long, long time the
consensus amongst knowledgable orchidologists has been that you cannot
separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum on the basis of morphological
characters.


In 1994, Garay, Siegerist et al attempted (yet another) division of
the Bulbophyllinae, based upon purely morphological characters.
Amongst other proposals, they resurrected Cirrhopetalum as a genus,
and created several minor genera such as Mastigion. I was not
impressed by their arguments (don't ask ... my reasons are very
lengthy) and I decided that it was more accurate to stick to the
old-fashioned concept of Bulbophyllum. 13 years later on, I'm certain
I made the correct decision. There is a clear consensus amongst recent
authors ... how many use Mastigion, Rhytionanthos, etc ? And how many
use Bulbophyllum ?


So my answer to your question is that no taxonomic authority has moved
Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum, because they were never
satisfactorially separated in the first place.


Peter O'Byrne"

****
Hope this helps
K Barrett


"Al Pickrel" wrote in message
news:S%kwk.511$Dj1.71@trnddc02...
Kew has Bulbo as the preferred botanical genus for all of the Cirr. But
so many are listed horticulturally as Cirrhopetalum. Being recently
interested in these, I am wondering which way the pendulum swings:
toward which genus and away from which? Why... when...

Talk to me RGO... what do we know?