Icones said: >I think Kew's >revision will not stand, but until enough people raise the issue with them, >it will not change. DNA is not an end all, be all, it is just another tool.
I am fascinated by the degree to which DNA-based typologies seem to map onto the general opinion of those who worked on morphology, field studies and common sense. That is, if one forgets the Linnean binomials and focuses on the clades, the two seem in remarkable agreement. Plainly, where the splitters have predominated over the lumpers, things are not so smooth and a large number of the Asian monopodial genera seem doomed. (What is it about the Vandeae that brings out the desire to divide and conquer? To my eye, the Paphs also seem over-segregated for either sense or utility, but at least they have remained a single genus until now - I think!) Equally, everyday convenience seems to require divisions where they are not strictly justified by "cut here" dotted lines: the ghastly lumps that are Dendrobium et al, and Bulbophyllum spring to mind. I have no real sense of how all this is being handled at the academic level. Plainly, a revolution is underway, and the spend on taxonomy has never, in absolute terms, been higher. There seem to be three levels to which this all has to answer. First, utility: do those who have to use the names find the distinctions which are made to meet their needs? Second, homology: do the distinctions which are to be made map onto what DNA, our eyes and field observation tells us? Third, change management: if someone revises a name, then how is this to be handled? The first and second of these are highly inter-twined, and relate to some of the points made above. Given a solution to the second issue - that of identifying the "right" dotted lines along which to cut - a rather ingenious idea has been wandering around for some years. This is to assign a database code to each such entity. This would pin together the various overlaps, synonyms and re-assignments that apply to this entity, so that for daily convenience it can be called a Qwerty uiop "Smelly Nellie", but to serious taxonomy it is SD2345X190, or some such. If horticulturalists wanted to split or lump they can do so at will, as the code itself would be unchanged. (I may have this wrong, so the better-informed should correct me if this is so.) I am not aware of any high level review of all of this as it pertains to orchids. It would be helpful if there were to be anyone in the readership who can offer a steer on this. ______________________________ Oliver Sparrow +44 (0)20 7736 9716 www.chforum.org _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
