Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 02:49 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default Taxonomy rant!

Diana Kulaga wrote:
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.


Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. :-P

  #17   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 02:49 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default Taxonomy rant!

Diana Kulaga wrote:
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.


Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-)

  #18   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 03:38 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 398
Default Taxonomy rant!

I've been sitting here biting my tongue, Andrew. The new Jones book is a must
have for its outstanding coverage of Australian natives (orchids, that is). But,
speaking entirely personally, the taxonomic restructures make me cross.

On 17 Sep 2006 17:49:45 -0700, "Andrew" wrote:

Diana Kulaga wrote:
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.


Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-)

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.
  #19   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 03:46 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 149
Default Taxonomy rant!

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




  #20   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:03 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
Default Taxonomy rant!

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








  #21   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:34 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 219
Default Taxonomy rant!

RBG Kew and RHS are separate organizations. The orchid registrar at RHS
doesn't have to use the taxonomy in the Kew checklist.
-danny


  #22   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 07:55 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 73
Default Taxonomy rant!

K Barrett wrote:
Check for grit in the ball.

K

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And also, my cursor is raging around the screen like a mad person! It
won't obey me! It is possessed! I hate that, when the mouse misbehaves!

Aacck.

Diana



Kath, this one had me laughing! It came under Al's post and I thought
you were replying to him before I saw Diana's quote!!

(Al, you got grit in your ball too???)

Reka
  #23   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 03:42 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
Default Taxonomy rant!

probably, I can hear it when I shake my head vigorously.

I have one of those laser mice. It behaves badly on reflective surfaces and
sometimes if it gets a bit of hair up in the shiny hole it makes the cursor
jump around.

"Reka" wrote in message
...

(Al, you got grit in your ball too???)

Reka



  #24   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 04:05 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
Default Taxonomy rant!

I have read the registrar discussing the merits of allowing the registration
of matings that include unique color forms of species that have already been
registered. I think he was saying it filled a horticultural need. I think
it was written in one of the IPA journals.

The RHS and the AOS do stick kind of close together on this kind of thing,
and the AOS is using it, but I did assume that Kew and the RHS were
'together'.

The monocot checklist is cool. I was looking at it again last night. The
list of orchid species names is so long...
The search page is very well put together and the easiest way to use it:
just set the family to ochidaceae and then select a genus
http://www.kew.org/wcsp/reportbuilder.do?method=Reset

I don't understand what "unplaced names" means. Phalaenopsis stobartiana
Rchb.f. is in this group.


"danny" wrote in message
...
RBG Kew and RHS are separate organizations. The orchid registrar at RHS
doesn't have to use the taxonomy in the Kew checklist.
-danny



  #25   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 04:53 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 13
Default Taxonomy rant!

Diana Kulaga wrote:
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).


As far as I can tell, the picture on 661 is the only error. Everywhere
else, the species are listed as Guarianthe bowringiana, G. aurantiaca,
etc. When used in hybrids, they're listed as Guarianthe (syn.
Cattleya). Presumably the "syn. Cattleya" reflects the fact that the
grex names have not been changed wholesale: Guarianthe bowringiana x
C. Armstrongiae is still Cattleya Porcia.

Some of the recent molecular work on which the taxonomy is based can be
found in this paper:
http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf
As best I can tell, if the C. bowringiana group remain in Cattleya,
then Rhyncholaelia and, possibly, Brassavola, would also need to be
folded into Cattleya. That would muck up the nomenclature of hybrids
almost as much, and it wouldn't solve all the problems, because a
couple of the unifoliate cattleyas are closer to the Brazilian laelias
than to other cattleyas.

I find a certain appeal in an extreme lumper approach which would place
all of Cattleya, Laelia, Brassavola, Rhyncholaelia, and Sophronitis in
a single genus. That way, all the fiddly inter-relationships among the
smaller groups could be worked out without disturbing the genus-level
taxonomy.

If you want to blame something, blame the grex registration system
which makes the nomenclature of orchid hybrids dependent on scientific
nomenclature that was developed when the plants were first described
and were poorly understood. It's hardly surprising that the
nomenclature needs to be revised in light of new data. If orchids used
a cultivar system like most other ornamental plant groups, it wouldn't
matter so much if the genus changed. Perhaps a better solution would
have been a simplified Grex system where all Cattleya alliance hybrids
get a single hybrid genus name (e.g. Cattleyahybrid, or something).
But, it's too late now.

I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for
the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not
changing my tags yet.

Nick



  #26   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:06 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
Default Taxonomy rant!

I like that too. Good link.

wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf

I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for
the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not
changing my tags yet.

Nick



  #27   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 05:29 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 97
Default Taxonomy rant!

P.S., that was good point about the grex registration system's inflexibility
of structure compared with what seems to be taxonomy's fluid structure. The
two systems do not play well together, that's for sure. I think the
registrar was testing the waters when he made the genus level changes in the
Oncidium group. It was unprecedented to go back in the records and make
wholesale changes. But the orchid world did not end or really even seem to
notice. The mass production vendors still call it Colmanara Wildcat. It
was also one of the least disruptive of the wholesale changes looming in the
records that he could have chosen to confront.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Diana Kulaga wrote:
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).


As far as I can tell, the picture on 661 is the only error. Everywhere
else, the species are listed as Guarianthe bowringiana, G. aurantiaca,
etc. When used in hybrids, they're listed as Guarianthe (syn.
Cattleya). Presumably the "syn. Cattleya" reflects the fact that the
grex names have not been changed wholesale: Guarianthe bowringiana x
C. Armstrongiae is still Cattleya Porcia.

Some of the recent molecular work on which the taxonomy is based can be
found in this paper:
http://www.cassiovandenberg.com/pdfs...enbergetal.pdf
As best I can tell, if the C. bowringiana group remain in Cattleya,
then Rhyncholaelia and, possibly, Brassavola, would also need to be
folded into Cattleya. That would muck up the nomenclature of hybrids
almost as much, and it wouldn't solve all the problems, because a
couple of the unifoliate cattleyas are closer to the Brazilian laelias
than to other cattleyas.

I find a certain appeal in an extreme lumper approach which would place
all of Cattleya, Laelia, Brassavola, Rhyncholaelia, and Sophronitis in
a single genus. That way, all the fiddly inter-relationships among the
smaller groups could be worked out without disturbing the genus-level
taxonomy.

If you want to blame something, blame the grex registration system
which makes the nomenclature of orchid hybrids dependent on scientific
nomenclature that was developed when the plants were first described
and were poorly understood. It's hardly surprising that the
nomenclature needs to be revised in light of new data. If orchids used
a cultivar system like most other ornamental plant groups, it wouldn't
matter so much if the genus changed. Perhaps a better solution would
have been a simplified Grex system where all Cattleya alliance hybrids
get a single hybrid genus name (e.g. Cattleyahybrid, or something).
But, it's too late now.

I kind of like Guarianthe. It commemorates the local Spanish name for
the plants, instead of some long dead Englishman. But, I'm not
changing my tags yet.

Nick



  #28   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 08:15 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 91
Default Taxonomy rant!

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:56:03 -0400 in Diana Kulaga wrote:
So what? Have the plants themselves changed?


No, JD. But, the "so what" is that we need to be able to talk to each other.
People are lining up as splitters and lumpers. The judges don't all accept
the changes. The AOS, in its own magazine, is confusing the issue by calling
a species different names in a pictorial article.

This stuff seems to be causing consternation and confusion within the orchid
growing community, and if the AOS and the judges can't get it right, how are
the rest of us supposed to do so?


Isn't that the scientific method when the devil is inthe details?


Diana




--
Chris Dukes
elfick willg: you can't use dell to beat people, it wouldn't stand up
to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat
  #29   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 09:31 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 589
Default Taxonomy rant!

The changes make Dave "cross". Written like the true gentleman he always is!
S

Diana

"Dave Gillingham" wrote in message
...
I've been sitting here biting my tongue, Andrew. The new Jones book is a
must
have for its outstanding coverage of Australian natives (orchids, that
is). But,
speaking entirely personally, the taxonomic restructures make me cross.

On 17 Sep 2006 17:49:45 -0700, "Andrew" wrote:

Diana Kulaga wrote:
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.


Hehe. Try growing Australian orchids. ;-)

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.



  #30   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2006, 09:35 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 589
Default Taxonomy rant!

Gene,

I think a lot of folks are resisting tag changes. We have a floor display to
install in late October. Wonder how the judges will treat labels that do not
reflect current taxo thinking? Our registrar has said she'll reflect the
synonyms on the tag.

As far as giving us something to talk about, sometimes I think it's more
like justifying their own existence. Either that, or just a way to make us
crazier than we already are!

Diana

"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






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[IBC] A plea (read; RANT) from the listowner Jim Lewis Bonsai 0 16-05-2003 12:44 AM
ISO....... Viola Freckles and Rant about how "cute" wild strawberries are Purchgdss Gardening 1 14-04-2003 02:32 AM
Organic Aphid spray? And my rant :-) Andrew G Australia 9 05-04-2003 07:33 AM
Rant--why don't nurseries label things better? Tony Gardening 41 12-03-2003 02:21 AM
a short garden related rant......... madgard Gardening 6 03-02-2003 03:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017