Nick, Sophronitis cernua, at least as I understand it, is not bird pollinated, and is the type species for the genus. Therefore the genus Sophronitis cannot be defined as being bird pollinated, because if you do, then the type species does not fit into the genus. You are correct that the other species, with the exception of S. pterocarpa, are not Sophronitis, which the DNA data supported.
If you review the complete molecular research being done for Gerera Orchidacearum it agrees with the traditional old classifications about 90% (the figure I last heard) of the time. Therefore causing very little or small changes. In this case the molecular data was so far out that it I think it should have raised red flags, but obviousely it did not. As I said before I understand that a far more comprehensive study is under way to try to sort this mess out. Lets hope it does. In my opinion if the data goes aginst 200 years of accumulated standard taxonomic knowledge, then the data must be viewed with a great deal of caution and I think must be rechecked several times before you turn the botanical world upside down. incones > Hi Leo, > > With Sophronitis (in the traditional sense), I'm under > the impression that we are looking at adaptations for > pollination by hummingbirds, hence the small labellum, > red color, and lack of fragrance. If the genus is > based on those features, it should probably ring alarm > bells so that we are wary of parallel evolution. My > understanding is that the molecular data does suggest > that's the case with Sophronitis, since S. cernua and > the other species don't form a monophyletic group. > You point out the importance of horticultural > information, and it is perhaps significant that S. > cernua has very different cultural requirements than > the other "Sophronitis" species. Presumably, the > shared flower characteristics have evolved twice, a > situation that was not easily detectable by > morphology. > > Since the molecular data had Sopronitis (and several > other genera) nesting within species that had > traditionally been called Laelia, there were two > options: split Laelia into a bunch of little genera > or lump a bunch of traditional genera together. It's > a judgment call, I guess, but at least lumping would > result in more stable nomenclature given the imperfect > data that is available. If you have a large, broadly > defined genus, you don't need to rename everything > when new data requires re-aligning the smaller groups. > So, I guess I'd consider the attempt to place all the > Brazilian Laelias into Sophronitis as imperfect but > reasonable, given the available data. > > Nick > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated > for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. > http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow > > _______________________________________________ > 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
