A Question for the Experts

[catlady]

Everytime I get a new orchid I trace it's heritage through the International Orchid Register and enter the parentage into my family history genealogy program. I was tracking the family line of Blc. Chia Lin 'New City' and ran into what might be a mistake in the Register. They show Bc. Hartland as the product of Rhyncholaeliocattleya Hannibal x C. Leda. Instead, it would seem more logical that Lc. Hannibal was the seed parent. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Linda

[Phantasm]

Usually the registrar will input the cross as the originator submits it. Mistakes can be made, and I'm sure there are many over time. Even though it is important to hybridizers which parent is the pod or pollen parent, the cross is the same with the parents reversed. The only way to know is to contact the person that created the cross.

[Tricho]

It is because one of the parents of Bc. Digbyano-Warneri (Bc. Hannibal= Bc. Digbyano-Warneri x C Fabia) was named Brassavola digbyana and now it is named Rhyncholaelia digbyana!

So, now you have Rhyncholaeliocattleya Digbyano-Warneri = Rhyncholaelia digbyana x Cattleya warneri.

They are not changing the offspring names accordingly so that we don't have to change thousands of hybrid names.

Don't know if they are going to change everything down the way in the future!

[cb977]

[Phantasm]

Many names are changing but for registration purposes this is still Brassavola. With all of the recent taxonomic changes, confusion is reigning with RHS registrations. It all depends on what the registrar decides.

[catlady]

Then is it possible to cross a Rhyncholaeliocattleya with a Cattleya and label the offspring Brassocattleya? The particular cross I'm referring to was registered in 1933. When did all this name changing start?

[Tricho]

Catlady,

As Phantasm said, I was convinced that it remained Brassavola for registration purposes ( as Miltoniopsis and Miltonia and others).

Untill I see any notification from them or untill a see more changes I would presume to be ok to continue with the same rules.

I have seen some name changing in that database (in Burrageara) that was reversed in a short time.

What, for us, is more important is the identification of the plants, name chances don't affect cultivation or beauty So, for me, it is not that important on the short run.

But if you register a cross, you must obey their rules, whatever they are at that time...

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by catlady

Then is it possible to cross a Rhyncholaeliocattleya with a Cattleya and label the offspring Brassocattleya? The particular cross I'm referring to was registered in 1933. When did all this name changing start?

I don't recall the exact date but this name change was about 10 years ago. Some genera were changed for registration purposes and others weren't. There doesn't appear to be much logic in either case. This will be a perpetual problem as taxonomy continues to split and combine various genera.

[catlady]

Is their an online site showing the various name changes so I don't make the "mistake" mistake again

[cb977]

Here you go:
The Royal Horticultural Society - Plants