I think that sometimes they do agree with some genera or think that the division of some genera is potentially correct but, to avoid daily changes, they wait for their own revision to be finished andf published or at least for their conclusions to be more or less well established as a whole about a tribe or subtribe before updating or accepting those genera. That's the case with most of Oncidiinae. Possibly we will have major changes published on Genera Orchidacearum vol 4, therefore they do not want to change now and redo the whole thing again in two or three years.
I guess, as an important reference database they are, they prefer to keep a more conservative aproach and just accept changes when they have a "final decision" coming from their own researchers. Well, I do not particularly imply here they agree or not with Tolumnia.
A kew strongly supports a phylogenethic approach, my guess is that Tolumnia will be accepted as preliminary information indicates it is more or less isolated and seems to be related to Erycina and Rynchostele, quite far from Oncidium. While subordinating Tolumnia under Oncidium, even Brassia, Gomesa and Ornithocephalus probably should have be included also. It is not likely to happen. Well, just my guess.
Dalton
At 23:26 17/10/2006, you wrote:
Can somebody explain to me, without using any obscenities, why the Kew Checklist does not accept the genus Tolumnia?
Iris
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 17/10/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4875
Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
