Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
The more well known (on sight to me) species with the daisy-like umbels are
the ones I am likely to encounter with the Cirr names attached when searching the internet. I found numerous misspellings on the tags in a group of bulbo and Cirr species I am getting in and looked them up on Kew and then just got angry because I had already done so much typing into the database. "OMG. They're ALL wrong. I hate orchids!" I like Eric Christenson. He is the only taxonomist I actually know. He wrote a book on Phal taxonomy I actually have half memorized. I think I will agree with him...since I have no other bases for deciding. LOL. I am getting old and loosing my sharpness. What is OW and IPNI? Can I find their databases on the internet? "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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
I got one! It just pooped in. OW=Orchidwiz. I have that on my computer.
That program authorifies Kew for "correct" naming. "Al Pickrel" wrote in message news:dxvwk.536$Dj1.255@trnddc02... The more well known (on sight to me) species with the daisy-like umbels are the ones I am likely to encounter with the Cirr names attached when searching the internet. I found numerous misspellings on the tags in a group of bulbo and Cirr species I am getting in and looked them up on Kew and then just got angry because I had already done so much typing into the database. "OMG. They're ALL wrong. I hate orchids!" I like Eric Christenson. He is the only taxonomist I actually know. He wrote a book on Phal taxonomy I actually have half memorized. I think I will agree with him...since I have no other bases for deciding. LOL. I am getting old and loosing my sharpness. What is OW and IPNI? Can I find their databases on the internet? "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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
IPNI = International Plant Name Index - Free on the Internet at
http://www.ipni.org/ ¬John "Al Pickrel" wrote in message news:dxvwk.536$Dj1.255@trnddc02... The more well known (on sight to me) species with the daisy-like umbels are the ones I am likely to encounter with the Cirr names attached when searching the internet. I found numerous misspellings on the tags in a group of bulbo and Cirr species I am getting in and looked them up on Kew and then just got angry because I had already done so much typing into the database. "OMG. They're ALL wrong. I hate orchids!" I like Eric Christenson. He is the only taxonomist I actually know. He wrote a book on Phal taxonomy I actually have half memorized. I think I will agree with him...since I have no other bases for deciding. LOL. I am getting old and loosing my sharpness. What is OW and IPNI? Can I find their databases on the internet? "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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
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$Dj1.71@trnddc02... Kew has Bulbo as the preferred botanical genus for all of the Cirr. But so many are listed horticulturally as Cirrhopetalum. Being recently interested in these, I am wondering which way the pendulum swings: toward which genus and away from which? Why... when... Talk to me RGO... what do we know? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
I hate orchids too! I've been driven crazy by the 'x' that preceeds a
natural hybrid name. Is there a space after the x or not? I see it both ways on the web. I thought I had it right (no space) until I went back through some old Orchid Digest mags. Fowlie uses a space. Now I'm trying to determine if naming conventions changed since Fowlie's time. Christensen is the only taxonomist that's accessable. He even lurks here. Or maybe a friend lurks and they mention when something's being said. I'd ask him about the 'x' but I want to figure it out for myself. In case you are wondering, this is why I have to know: http://www.aospacificcentral.org/SFS...pradhanii.html I get emails if I'm wrong. Fun, huh? If Christensen emails me that I'm full of beans about Bulb I'll tell you. K Barrett "Al Pickrel" wrote in message news:dxvwk.536$Dj1.255@trnddc02... The more well known (on sight to me) species with the daisy-like umbels are the ones I am likely to encounter with the Cirr names attached when searching the internet. I found numerous misspellings on the tags in a group of bulbo and Cirr species I am getting in and looked them up on Kew and then just got angry because I had already done so much typing into the database. "OMG. They're ALL wrong. I hate orchids!" I like Eric Christenson. He is the only taxonomist I actually know. He wrote a book on Phal taxonomy I actually have half memorized. I think I will agree with him...since I have no other bases for deciding. LOL. I am getting old and loosing my sharpness. What is OW and IPNI? Can I find their databases on the internet? "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$Dj1.71@trnddc02... Kew has Bulbo as the preferred botanical genus for all of the Cirr. But so many are listed horticulturally as Cirrhopetalum. Being recently interested in these, I am wondering which way the pendulum swings: toward which genus and away from which? Why... when... Talk to me RGO... what do we know? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:58:57 GMT in B0wwk.707$Wd.162@trnddc01 Al Pickrel wrote:
I got one! It just pooped in. OW=Orchidwiz. I have that on my computer. That program authorifies Kew for "correct" naming. I think IPNI is Incomplete Plant Name Index. And if it isn't, it should be :-). -- Chris Dukes "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." -- G. K. Chesterton. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:00:10 -0700 in K Barrett wrote:
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. I guess I'll ask the impertinant question now... has anyone done gene sequencing on prominant plants with the Cirr genus somtimes applied, prominant plants with the Bulbophyllum genus applied, and the fringe cases? I have this funny feeling that as gene sequencing improves a lot of the existing taxonomy will be tossed on its ear. -- Chris Dukes "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." -- G. K. Chesterton. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
wrote in message
... On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:00:10 -0700 in K Barrett wrote: 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. I guess I'll ask the impertinant question now... has anyone done gene sequencing on prominant plants with the Cirr genus somtimes applied, prominant plants with the Bulbophyllum genus applied, and the fringe cases? I have this funny feeling that as gene sequencing improves a lot of the existing taxonomy will be tossed on its ear. -- Chris Dukes "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." -- G. K. Chesterton. I hope Rob Halgren (of Rob's Rules) chimes in here becasue he's employed in this field. I know there are efforts to elucidate the genomes of orchids and rank them in a new systemic order according to their DNA. This is what the debate in Cattleyas has been about for the past 7-8 years, much of which is open to debate. If you look at the DNA analysis of Laelia purpurata (for example) it is closer to Sophronitis (like Soph coccinea) than to the Mexican laelias (like L anceps). Now, to look at L purpurata and Soph coccinea one would never think they were closely related at all, but genetically they are. This is where the debate starts. Some say the science is moving too fast. The cladistic analyses haven't been verified by others in the field (a major tenet of the Scientific Method) and is stacked in favor of these splits. However these analyses were performed by people with huge amounts for credibility, so who's to say they are wrong? Cassio Van Den Berg at the Miami WOC proposed lumping many species back into 'Cattleya', for to continually split and split and split was getting ridiculous - many monotypic genera were created, interrelationships became unwieldy. This proposal has yet to be accepted. There is an effort to create a genetic barcode for every species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding The 3rd International Orchid Conservation Committee met in Costa Rica last year, its proceedings lists had many talks about genetic identification, specifically about orchids. So the quick answer to your question is yes, the genetic interrelationships of every species on the planet are being elucidated and progress is happening at light speed. Knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds since 2000 or so. In medicine there's a push to determine personal genomes (that is to say your own personal DNA code). The target price for this is $1000.00 It presently costs much, much more than that, but it'll happen sooner than you think. Then the debate about whether health insurance should have access to that data will begin. Insurers denying coverage based on DNA has lready been made illegal, but you know how business works, there's always wiggle room. *G* Then there's J Craig Ventner's effort at creating life from stock genetic material. He's already put together one chromosome from stock which he hopes to insert into the nucleus of a monochromosomal bacteria (its chromosome will have been removed) and see if his kickstarts and the bacteria continues to live. (cue: Frankenstein "Its Alive!" sequence). Not to mention that the monochromosomal bacteria he selected for use is a pathogen from the human urinary tract. This is an offshoot from research in making genetic machines. You gotta keep up, Chris! K Barrett |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?
Some interesting stuff about genetics I've found along the way.
J Craig Venter http://www.jcvi.org/ Barcode of Life http://www.barcoding.si.edu/ and Kew http://www.kew.org/barcoding/ Furthering teh theory of human migration out of Africa http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-genetics.html Synthetic biology http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200802291 K "K Barrett" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:00:10 -0700 in K Barrett wrote: 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. I guess I'll ask the impertinant question now... has anyone done gene sequencing on prominant plants with the Cirr genus somtimes applied, prominant plants with the Bulbophyllum genus applied, and the fringe cases? I have this funny feeling that as gene sequencing improves a lot of the existing taxonomy will be tossed on its ear. -- Chris Dukes "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." -- G. K. Chesterton. I hope Rob Halgren (of Rob's Rules) chimes in here becasue he's employed in this field. I know there are efforts to elucidate the genomes of orchids and rank them in a new systemic order according to their DNA. This is what the debate in Cattleyas has been about for the past 7-8 years, much of which is open to debate. If you look at the DNA analysis of Laelia purpurata (for example) it is closer to Sophronitis (like Soph coccinea) than to the Mexican laelias (like L anceps). Now, to look at L purpurata and Soph coccinea one would never think they were closely related at all, but genetically they are. This is where the debate starts. Some say the science is moving too fast. The cladistic analyses haven't been verified by others in the field (a major tenet of the Scientific Method) and is stacked in favor of these splits. However these analyses were performed by people with huge amounts for credibility, so who's to say they are wrong? Cassio Van Den Berg at the Miami WOC proposed lumping many species back into 'Cattleya', for to continually split and split and split was getting ridiculous - many monotypic genera were created, interrelationships became unwieldy. This proposal has yet to be accepted. There is an effort to create a genetic barcode for every species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding The 3rd International Orchid Conservation Committee met in Costa Rica last year, its proceedings lists had many talks about genetic identification, specifically about orchids. So the quick answer to your question is yes, the genetic interrelationships of every species on the planet are being elucidated and progress is happening at light speed. Knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds since 2000 or so. In medicine there's a push to determine personal genomes (that is to say your own personal DNA code). The target price for this is $1000.00 It presently costs much, much more than that, but it'll happen sooner than you think. Then the debate about whether health insurance should have access to that data will begin. Insurers denying coverage based on DNA has lready been made illegal, but you know how business works, there's always wiggle room. *G* Then there's J Craig Ventner's effort at creating life from stock genetic material. He's already put together one chromosome from stock which he hopes to insert into the nucleus of a monochromosomal bacteria (its chromosome will have been removed) and see if his kickstarts and the bacteria continues to live. (cue: Frankenstein "Its Alive!" sequence). Not to mention that the monochromosomal bacteria he selected for use is a pathogen from the human urinary tract. This is an offshoot from research in making genetic machines. You gotta keep up, Chris! K Barrett |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cirrhopetalum Elizabeth Ann "Buckleberry" | Orchids |