[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Message: 2 >Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:26:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >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 > > > My 2ยข worth:
Part of the problem is the difference between taxonomic classification and horticultural relevance. Horticultural focus is on utility. Taxonomic focus is on evolutionary differentiation and classification. Part of the problem with this is that taxonomists often forget that this is a PROCESS, not a fixed, finished product. They, especially with the new emphasis on genetic studies, are trying to hit a moving target. A loose analogy would be to consider humans and chimps the same thing. And here's the rub: taking the taxonomic classification to a practical level and treating humans and chimps the same culturally would result in one group or the other, if not both, expiring. I would rather see sophronitis, hoffmannseggella, and cattleya (including cattleyodes Laelias) as separate entities with perhaps another for those other Brazilian Laelias which don't fit in these groups (sincorana, fidelensis, etc.). WE, as folks 'familiar' with taxonomy, but full of practical experience, can see the big picture while the taxonomists are focussing on a gene sequence: we can SEE these things are DIFFERENT. They live and grow differently, behave differently, have different needs. Apparently the genetic sequences they're studying either don't tell the whole tale or are the wrong sequences to be looking at. The orchid registry should be more practically - horticulturally - based. We can see that 'Brassavola digbyana' isn't really a Brassavola and accept that, for example. Leave taxonomy to the taxonomists and our registry to us. And here's a thought: if they absoilutely refuse to stop the name-changing tango, once something's registered (Potinara Afternoon Delight, just for example), just as in the publication rule for botany, the name is FIXED. So it doesn't change when later taxonomy revises one or more of the parents. AND - here's a tip for the now all-but-useless RHS orchid search page - cross entries to previous names should be included if indeed the name DOES change. So, while digbyana may now be Rhyncholaelia, anything already registered as a Blc. with it as the B. parent STAYS a Blc. - anything new after the name changed, can be a Rhyncholaeliocattleya, but with an asterisk showing the older form of the name (Blc.) - care taken to ensure crosses aren't double-registered this way. This all seems pretty common-sense to me; perhaps that's what's lacking at the top: common sense. If nothing else comes of all this, let's at least hope the RHS registrar has gotten his long-deserved come-uppance! Tennis Maynard _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
