As Iris, John, Peter, and others already pointed out, there is no easy way to define what a species is. Dozens of books and a myriad of articles in scientific journals have been written on the subject. A good summary of the major species concepts as applied to the orchids is provided in this publication:
Pridgeon, A.M. 2003. Modern species concepts and practical considerations for conservation of Orchidaceae. Pages 43-53 in: Orchid Conservation (K.W. Dixon, S.P. Kell, R.L. Barrett and P.J. Cribb, editors). Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. As for its perceived impact on orchid commerce, it must be said that the phenomenon of synonyms created by alternative classifications is neither new nor exclusive to orchids. The traditional classifications of all groups of plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. are being revised under the light of molecular data. What many people fail to acknowledge is that in many cases the molecular data actually support traditional classifications. But even before the era of molecular data, orchid taxonomy was far from static. Some orchid growers seem to think that taxonomists must stop changing names just because this is inconvenient to them. I am sorry to break the news, but the concerns of orchid growers are not exactly a top priority for taxonomists. The goal for most taxonomists today is to group species according to their evolutionary relationships. And I seriously doubt that name changes force growers to spend large amounts of money in replacing plant tags, compared to the expenses generated by heating, fertilizing, watering, building greenhouses, and buying plants. I am not trying to be confrontational, just sincere. Peace, Mario -- Mario A. Blanco Department of Botany University of Florida 227 Bartram Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-8526 U.S.A. Robert Riefer wrote: > Thank you for your responses to my question of exactly what constitutes a > species. I do not wish to start any trouble or animosity, but rather debate > as to where taxonomy is at with respect to the orchids. and the possibilities > at where it may go. > The people contributing to this website are obviously highly intelligent > with strongly held opinions. Wonderful! > What concerns me as to classification of orchids of late is there are so > many biosynonyms for a single species that detriment to the orchid producing, > growing, and consuming community is occuring. Namely: 1) Potential sales are > lost due to confusion. 2) Expenses are increased and time is wasted for > producers (new tags, catalogs, software, website changes. 3) Consumers who > only know of one biosynonym may not get the plant they want. > Taxonomy of late has indeed become quite taxing of money and patience. > What was once an asset to commerce and contibution of knowledge has now > become a liability. > _______________________________________________ > 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
