Ray, I didn't want umbel/non-umbel to be the end of the conversation.
People who passively read this news group listen to you. They may not read
the whole post about how confusing bulbophyllums are even to taxonomists. A
myth would persist. Neither of us want that.

K Barrett

"Ray B" wrote in message
...
Lighten-up, Kath. I said I prefer to, not that I do.

I am very well aware that I am not qualified to discuss taxonomy any more
than is the guy who just installed our new kitchen appliances. In fact, I
know SO little about taxonomy that it appears to me that the flower-head
structure would make a perfectly good separator in the bulbo/cirro arena.

Unlike some people who frequent forums, newsgroups, and mailing lists, if
there's a subject I don't know anything about, I don't respond, unless I'm
making a joke )or at least attempting to).
--

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


"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Actually, no, I won't walk away from this. Ray, you'd be wrong, and
since you spend a huge amount of time on line and are considered somewhat
of an authority in chat rooms world wide you to be more knowledgeable,
your bar is set higher than that.

Read Peter's post again. He states that while Cirro raises its head time
and again as authors become more familiar with the wide range of species
involved the distinctions blur, so they go back to Bulbo. So if
*authors* - who know more than you or I do about these species - keep
returning to Bulbophyllum why shouldn't you?

It would be one thing if a newbie said umbel/non-umbel, but you aren't a
newbie.

K Barrett

"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
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?