I'm not a taxonomist, nor do I play one on TV. My understanding is that, at its basic level, taxonomy is simply a method of organization designed to help us better understand the relationships between plants (and animals).
The taxonomists of the 1800's created an aura of glory surrounding the naming of a 'new' genera. This quest continued, with progressively more and more splitting. Much of this did not add to the understanding of the relationship of the new genera to existing ones because the taxonomists in questions chose the glory of a new genera over the practical value of defining sections. A good example is Bulbohpyllum section cirrhopetalum. This has been batted across the net for over 100 years. As more intermediate species were discovered, it became fairly obvious that there is no clear demarkation between cirrhopetalums and other bulbophyllums. Size and color may be 'apparent' differences to laymen, but taxonomists know they are not a valid basis for splitting genera. Homo sapiens... big'uns, little'uns, dark'uns, light'uns - all the same genera and species. Taxonomy is an arena for scientific debate. Theories will be batted back & forth with the occasional ball flying into the stands and nary an impartial judge to declare a winner. My personal observations of the game ... plants can't read, and knowing the latest score does not make you a better grower. But I still enjoy being a spectator. David Janvrin >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [OGD] Name changes >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > >Dear All- > > **The below are questions that i have been wondering about for a while - I am > well aware and understand all the proposed revisions and papers published on > the Cattleya alliance having a background in plant taxonomy. My curiosity is > about how the public interprets these types of studies and publications** > >With all the taxonomic revision surrounding the genus cattleya I know that >there have been many complaints about sorting out the delimitations of the >genera Cattleya, Sophronitis, Laelia etc etc. >I have seen more people comment on the initial movement of Laelia purpurata >and L.tenebrosa into Sophronitis. I was wondering...is the public refusal to >accept such a change becuase: > >A) It is difficult to imagine combining a genus of large purple/pink flowered >plants into a genus of small red/orange flowered plants? would it have been >more "acceptable" to move Sopronitis into Laelia and have Laelia coccinea and >Laelia cernua? > >B)the name changes have been so frequent causing too much confusion about what >you knew previously? (including the new and confusing hybrid grex names) > >C)the new classification makes it impossible to understand how to tell the >genera apart? > >D) How scientists use DNA analysis to help track the relationships between >plants to help determine the classification of groups of related species? > >I find it interesting that people have "pitchforks and torches" out for >taxonomists over the Cattleya alliance but all the changes with Masdevallia, >Dendrobium, the Oncidinae,and the Huntleya alliance went by with little public >comment. I would love to hear peoples replies and comments about these >questions on or off list. Interpretation of scientific data and science >writing for mass media is something that I do on a regular basis so this is >something that is relevant to what I do. I am also in the process of preparing >a presentation for our judging center here in the north east about how to >understand and interpret the recent taxonomic revisions. > >sincerely >marc > > _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
