Mark, You wrote:
> I would disagree that we should strive for a "database that reflects the > current consensus of the majority of orchid people (please note I did > not say taxonomist)." The majority of people may not be as up-to-date > on current research on a group of plants, and so I don't think that mob > rule is the way to construct a classification system. After all, the > majority of U.S. citizens do not believe in evolution, but at least so > far the college textbooks have not been rewritten to do away with > evolutionary theory. Sorry that you took my "orchid People" for "the mob", I did not intend that. Let me explain further. "Orchid people" to me includes the scientific community, as well as those people that grow, study and have considerable knowledge about living orchids. Certainly not the "mob". The mess (my word) we have with Laelia/Sophronitis was, in my opinion, partially due to the individuals involved not paying any attention to the people that really know these plants as living entities. Taxonomist generally work from a dried (read dead) specimen, often times never having seen the plants alive or growing over a period of time. That's not bad, it is just a fact. There are exceptions to this I realize. Geneticists, again generally, are even further removed from real knowledge about the plants as living entities. Again not bad, just a fact. Here again I know there are exceptions. If the geneticists at Kew had taken into consideration what the "orchid People" knew they might have done things differently. I find it very interesting that a different group of people using the very same data came to a different conclusion. As I understand it, there is a new revision in the works that will change everything again. As I said a mess. icones _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
