Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:27 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:38 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 198
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:38 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:52 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:01 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 02:16 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 198
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:25 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 03:58 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 04:05 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 452
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:00 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 06:14 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:08 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 164
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:16 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 164
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:42 PM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2008, 01:11 AM posted to rec.gardens.orchids
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,344
Default 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
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
Cirrhopetalum Elizabeth Ann "Buckleberry" Gene Schurg Orchids 1 08-03-2003 01:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.

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