Phal or Dtps?
 

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

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

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

As for as I know, currently, the RHS has made no move to change the
classification scheme. As well, in the most recent update to Sander's
list, ~60 new Dtps were registered. For the moment, I am certainly
keeping my tags unchanged.

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

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

David,

Don't change the labels. In a couple of years another taxonmist will make a
compelling arguement in his PhD thesis about why they should be separate
genera. Orchid people who know what is happening in the hobby understand
the doritis/phal issue. I believe the RHS is much slower to change their
system. There are probably thousands of crosses that would have to be
reclassified if the new combined genera were universally accepted. Massive
confusion erupts when inter-genera crosses have been made with doritis and
other genera.

From my observation, when a genera is divided there is more acceptance than
when two are combined. Gee....I wonder what my equitant Oncidiums are
called this week?

The most important thing is how is the plant(s) themselves growing? Would
you treat it differently as a phal?

If you get to the point where you're ready to register a new cross someone
will tell you what is acceptible on that day of the week.....It's sort of
Orchid Flavor of the Day!

Good Growing,
Gene




"David Edgley" wrote in message
...
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