Cattleya walkeriana and nobilior -- down the rabbit hole

[Leafmite]

I think that DNA testing will be the only way that one can be absolutely positive whether an orchid 'species' is truly a species when there is some doubt. Our orchid society just had Tim Culbertson speak about Laelia anceps (Zoom) and, from all the pictures he showed, it is quite amazing to see how different the jungle collected versions are from the others, as well as all the differences in the variations. With mutations (i.e. 4n Mendenhall) and selective breeding, a Cattleya can really change from the original version. With all the changes brought about in hybridization (including the loss of fragrance that was once needed to attract pollinators), and so many Cattleyas already closely related, one needs to wonder where to draw the line in determining an orchid to still represent the species.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Leafmite

I think that DNA testing will be the only way that one can be absolutely positive whether an orchid 'species' is truly a species when there is some doubt.

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

It is tangled at the genus level, forget about making sense of species, even less having a chance of determining species vs hybrids... Taxonomic names are binary (either "this" or "that") but that's a human structure to try to illuminate relationships, nature is not that tidy, the "mapping" often has ambiguities and always will, the entire concept of "species" is rather fluid. Then, hybridizers mix and match, and so does nature.

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by Roberta

It is tangled at the genus level, forget about making sense of species, even less having a chance of determining species vs hybrids... Taxonomic names are binary (either "this" or "that") but that's a human structure to try to illuminate relationships, nature is not that tidy, the "mapping" often has ambiguities and always will, the entire concept of "species" is rather fluid. Then, hybridizers mix and match, and so does nature.

I was going to attempt to say this, glad I left it to you!

[Leafmite]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

I had no idea. Wow!