Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[IBC] A plea (read; RANT) from the listowner | Bonsai | |||
ISO....... Viola Freckles and Rant about how "cute" wild strawberries are | Gardening | |||
Organic Aphid spray? And my rant :-) | Australia | |||
Rant--why don't nurseries label things better? | Gardening | |||
a short garden related rant......... | Gardening |