Hello everuone!

I just arrived from my meeting from the orchidophiles de montréal. There was
a conference about Phal. Very interresting.

I also won a plant tonight but I have no idea what it is. It is a very tiny
plant in a 1 inch diameter pot.
The label says:

Tolumnia Ole
Tol. Shannon Elisabeth X Mem. Ralph Yagi

Any idea?
What are the conditiopn of culture knowing that I grow mostly Phal, Dtps and
Paph.
Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!
Also, Ray, is Tolumnia can be grown in S/H ?

Thanks

Claude

Tolumnia culture in brief
http://orchidweb.org/orchids/az/tolumnia.html

"Claude" wrote in message
. ..
Hello everuone!

I just arrived from my meeting from the orchidophiles de montréal. There
was
a conference about Phal. Very interresting.

I also won a plant tonight but I have no idea what it is. It is a very
tiny
plant in a 1 inch diameter pot.
The label says:

Tolumnia Ole
Tol. Shannon Elisabeth X Mem. Ralph Yagi

Any idea?
What are the conditiopn of culture knowing that I grow mostly Phal, Dtps
and
Paph.
Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!
Also, Ray, is Tolumnia can be grown in S/H ?

Thanks

Claude

"Claude" wrote in message
. ..

Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!

The taxonomy world is a strange one with mob rule. There is no committee
which reviews and votes on suggested reclassification, instead a change is
suggested in a publication and if people like it over time it will take. In
Christenson's Phalaenopsis monograph he suggested that Doritis should be
reclassified as a Phalaenopsis. The person who told you it has been
reclassified has accepted Christenson's work. I have heard others say that
the differences between a Phal and a Doritis are greater than the
differences between a Cattleya and Laelia and they are not accepting the
suggested change. It will take years for it all to play out. Until then
pick a side and label your plants as you wish. RHS orchid registration will
take much longer to change even if the reclassification is accepted by the
general orchid community. Orchid crosses involving pulcherrima will be
registered as Doritis crosses with the RHS for many years into the future.

Pat Brennan

"Claude" wrote in message
. ..
Hello everuone!

Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!

Yes, it is true, at least if you accept Christenson's treatment of
Phalaenopsis taxonomy.

Cheers,

Ted

There was a story, told a few years ago by somebody (Christenson?) about
how virtually all of the 'standard' type Dtps (the ones that look like
standard phals) were descended from effectively one 'Dtps' parent. And
no, I can't remember the name, and don't have time to look it up right
now, maybe somebody else knows. Anyway, when he went back to look at
that parent, it turns out that it had been misregistered as a
doritaenopsis, when it was really 100% phalaenopsis. Hence, most of the
Dtps. in the world today would be Phal., regardless of classification
issues. Also, when does the 'original sin' of having a doritis parent
wear off? The answer is never, according to the registrars, at least.
Most of the standard Dtps. are at least 6 generations removed from any
direct influence of the species. There ain't much Doritis in a
doritaenopsis. You can tell a 'true' doritaenopsis by its upright
flower spike and smallish flowers (Think Dtps. Talitha Klehm, or Dtps.
Firecracker).

I don't think I buy that the differences between phal and doritis are
significant enough to warrant separate genera, but then again, IANAT (I
am not a taxonomist), and if I were, I would be a 'lumper' not a
'splitter'. Christenson's argument in his Phalaenopsis monograph is
reasonably convincing, especially if you take it in the context of his
other revisions. Quite frankly, given his apparent tendency to split
species and create new genera given rather minute differences (again,
IANAT) I find the fact that he wants to join these two concepts together
to be quite a solid argument. If he can't justify splitting them,
nobody can. Then again, I'm a lumper and proud of it.

Rob



Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been
told tonight!



The taxonomy world is a strange one with mob rule. There is no committee
which reviews and votes on suggested reclassification, instead a change is
suggested in a publication and if people like it over time it will take. In
Christenson's Phalaenopsis monograph he suggested that Doritis should be
reclassified as a Phalaenopsis. The person who told you it has been
reclassified has accepted Christenson's work. I have heard others say that
the differences between a Phal and a Doritis are greater than the
differences between a Cattleya and Laelia and they are not accepting the
suggested change. It will take years for it all to play out. Until then
pick a side and label your plants as you wish. RHS orchid registration will
take much longer to change even if the reclassification is accepted by the
general orchid community. Orchid crosses involving pulcherrima will be
registered as Doritis crosses with the RHS for many years into the future.

Pat Brennan






--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
[snip]
doritaenopsis. You can tell a 'true' doritaenopsis by its upright
flower spike and smallish flowers (Think Dtps. Talitha Klehm, or Dtps.

You mean similar to P. equestris? I have a P. equestris 'alba' and it's
inflorescence was relatively upright, and it has rather small flowers.

nobody can. Then again, I'm a lumper and proud of it.

Me too. But I'm also a bit lumpy. :-)

;-)

Cheers,

Ted

Rob Halgren writes:
'splitter'. Christenson's argument in his Phalaenopsis monograph is
reasonably convincing, especially if you take it in the context of his

Giving a reason that an error has been made at some point is one
thing.

Explaining why this error needs to be fixed is something very
different.

Trying to reuse a name already in use in the fix should be grounds for
immediate suspension by the heels on the local pier, with the head at
the low tide mark. When he survives a week of tides (my local tides,
mind. They are about 15cm) is when I will think reusing old names is a
good thing.

Geir - system designer

Geir Harris Hedemark wrote:

Rob Halgren writes:


'splitter'. Christenson's argument in his Phalaenopsis monograph is
reasonably convincing, especially if you take it in the context of his



Giving a reason that an error has been made at some point is one
thing.

Explaining why this error needs to be fixed is something very
different.

Trying to reuse a name already in use in the fix should be grounds for
immediate suspension by the heels on the local pier, with the head at
the low tide mark. When he survives a week of tides (my local tides,
mind. They are about 15cm) is when I will think reusing old names is a
good thing.



I disagree a bit... Taxonomy is by definition going to fall down on
occassion, nature doesn't come wrapped up in pretty paper with ribbons
around each species, easily distinguishable from each other under the
christmas tree of life... Names should be fixed to reflect current
ideas in biology, if necessary. If that means reverting a 'new name'
back to an 'old name', so be it. That _does not_ mean that everything
needs a new name. The RHS has been pretty good about distinguishing
horticultural and botanical namespaces. For example, Epidendrum x
Cattleya = Epicattleya. Encyclia x Cattleya = Epicattleya. I'd argue
that the division of Encyclia and Epidendrum was a very good thing (they
are very different). But equally good was RHS keeping the horticultural
definition of Epicattleya consistent. They did the same thing when
Brassavola digbyana was (correctly) deemed to be in another genus
(Rhyncholaelia). Bl., Blc, Slc, Pot., etc, are highly dependent on R.
digbyana in the background, but again the RHS hasn't instituted a
wholesale name change.

I guess my point is that the species names should reflect the
current taxonomy, which is easy enough to fix. Intergeneric hybrids,
especially well established ones, shouldn't be mucked with. There is a
great deal of difference between horticultural naming and botanical
naming. No need to change all Dtps. to Phal. It wouldn't work anyway,
there are duplicate names (Phal. Arianne Cohen and Dtps. Arianne Cohen,
for example). That is a tide pool I don't want to jump into....

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Rob Halgren writes:
I guess my point is that the species names should reflect the
current taxonomy, which is easy enough to fix. Intergeneric hybrids,

What isn't easy is knowing which taxonomy was used when someone gives
you a name. I would also like to know which plant is meant by a name,
not just which name a plant has. If people are to reuse old names,
they also should tell me which set of ideas they are using.

especially well established ones, shouldn't be mucked with. There is a
great deal of difference between horticultural naming and botanical
naming. No need to change all Dtps. to Phal. It wouldn't work anyway,
there are duplicate names (Phal. Arianne Cohen and Dtps. Arianne Cohen,
for example). That is a tide pool I don't want to jump into....

It is a tide pool I don't much care if even exists.

I think I shall call all my orchids Freckles from now on. Naming them
doesn't help me not killing them anyway.

Geir - disgruntled. The ascocenda just died. Damn.

Claude,

Congratulations on your win!

In another thread, Ray mentioned that he had tried Tolumnias in S/H, and
said NOT to do it, in capital letters.

Diana

I am sorry for your loss Geir :-(

Joanna

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...

I think I shall call all my orchids Freckles from now on. Naming them
doesn't help me not killing them anyway.

Geir - disgruntled. The ascocenda just died. Damn.