Marc Writes: "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." And these are good and important questions. He touches on the long history of using visual distinctions to tell genera and subgenera apart, and how that now seems too often at odds with taxonomic changes based on DNA analysis. Most can, after seeing a few examples, easily tell a Cattleya from a Laelia from a Sophronitis. They can even distinguish the various subgenera. In a pinch they can use the difference in the number of pollinia to tell the genera apart. For generations these gross visual distinctions were enough. And they seemed to say something about the way in which these plants were related evolutionarily (which I always thought was at the base of taxonomy). Now all of a sudden, Cattleya, Laelia, and Sophronitis are being lumped and split and lumped in quick succession and in various ways. The new taxonomic tools that were supposed to elucidate relationships seem to be doing no such thing, just creating new opinions. He also brings up the fact that few of us understand how DNA taxonomy is done. Obviously entire genomes are not compared, but specific genes (or groups of genes?). These genes seem to vary with the genera studied and with different researchers. And the results these studies produce are often at odds with what seems intuitive. There is a great example of this in the Bromeliad family. From the time that the genera Tillandsia and Vriesea were erected, one major difference between the two was the presence or absence of "nectar scales" at the base of the petals. It was universal, and bolstered what seemed visually obvious on a gross level. With the advent of molecular taxonomy, suddenly it was no longer important. Plants which previously had been considered as examples of convergent evolution in different genera were suddenly seen as in the same genus despite floral differences (and a real hesitance to interbreed). He does not mention the suspicion many people have of the conflict between lumpers and splitters. In Orchidacaea you have a huge family, with more species than any other plant family, and a huge number of genera. Why shouldn't there be a number of huge genera within it? That some taxonomists are made nervous by huge genera, and others by tiny ones does little to inspire confidence in taxonomy in general. There has been a great deal of grumbling in my neck of the woods over the changes in Masdevallia and Pleurothallis, probably because they are so common in collections here. And almost no one uses the new names here: hoping, I think, that if they are ignored, they will go away. I would look forward to seeing an article from Marc dealing with these issues, and if he takes it "on the road", a lecture/slide presentation. I think it would serve hobbyists well to have a greater understanding of the "advances" in modern taxonomy and the changes they seem to be inspiring. We could then make a more educated choice about when to change labels, and learn new names. Dennis **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 ) _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
