When is an orchid considered a species?
 

I'm confused when I see a lower-case species name with a capitalized name after it. If an orchid is advertised as a species but has a capitalized name after the lower-case species name is it still considered a species?

Good question! If a species plant gets awarded for being exceptional, the grower can then give that plant a clonal name, just like an awarded hybrid. For example:

Ascocentrum curvifolium 'Red Dragon', AM/AOS

Sometimes people don't properly put clonal names in single quotes. If the preceding lower case name is definitely a species, you can assume that what follows is a clonal name. But sometimes big commercial growers will give one of their plants a clonal name even though it isn't awarded.

Ditto what Gage said, though really any unique individual can have a clonal name, most people just don't bother unless there's some reason to such as registering an award or for breeding purposes.

But yes, a particular clone of a species is still considered that species for all intents and purposes.

--Nat

By technical definition, native species essentially means that there was no human intervention in the growth or continued survival of a species in a certain ecosystem. This means that even if they originated elsewhere, orchids that have blossomed in particular habitats are considered native species after a number of years. In many ways, native species are quite strong, because they haven’t needed any form of aid to avoid extinction.
When an orchid species is introduced to a new ecosystem(as indoors or in a farm), it’s no longer considered a native species. This would be the case when the flowers are transplanted between regions or orchid farms because of changes in their natural habitat. By introducing an orchid species into a new ecosystem, it then becomes an invasive species.
But still: it is a specie, because there is no contamination of breed in either nature or in a lab

So soybeans and wheat are invasive species in North America because they are not native?

That's not 100% correct!

First, native species do not necessarily have to be strong. Very often they are actual very weak and cannot compete with introduced changes in the environment (natural or not!).

Not all introduced species are invasive species. Invasive species are normally strong species which can compete with the local plants and have a better performance, very often replacing the local native species. Wheat and soybeans are introduces in the USA and are not invasive...

Introduced species that become feral, even after many many years are still introduced species and cannot be considered native species, e.g. Arundina graminifloia and Spathoglottis sp are feral species in Hawaii... Since ages! And they are not considered native Hawaiian plants!

relax guys...first of:

look up the meaning of "invasive"= if you are not native to the land...the scientific name they coined for forreign plants is: invasive meaning invaded the territory...it not a term I invented...I just read about it in botanical books...
I guess you think you are better than botanical books then go on and say your piece!
invasive doesnt mean it is destructive and decimated other living plant...its merely a term used by botanists.
species are strong because they lived and existed for centuries...its the part of land that changed and made them weak and start to be extinct...partly because of human intervention...ang YES! they are "invasive" plants if they are not native to the land

theres no species of wheat or soya beans...all of them are hybrids from farming thu the centuries...the original species of those dated back to the Egyptian / Moses period of the bible maybe...even then they have produced hybrids of it already...do your research before you bust me!
I dont even know why I reacted to this...since I would be contributing to your learning...if I was cruel I'd just let you go on with your misinformation LOL

and please give the person of this thread your definition of "specie" let me see how you do it smartpants!

I think Minda was asking a simple question about the way people write out orchids' names that led to the follow up question about what constitutes for a species orchid to be considered a species orchid versus a hybrid.

Since there is already an ongoing discussion about what constitutes a species orchid to be considered a species orchid vs a hybrid, I will focus on the easy part of the inquiry.

The proper way to taxonomically write out the species name to a species orchid is:

Bulbophyllum psychoon (correct! :))

vs

Bulbophyllum Psychoon (wrong! :evil:)

People who write species names for species orchids with the species portion of the name capitalized often think it isn't a big deal.

Well, I hate to say it, but...it kinda is considering how much confusion it can and has caused!

Most people don't see a whole lot of orchids due to issues related to what kinds of orchids they're interested in, so many people don't see the nightmare it can cause when someone comes across a hybrid with a Latinized name!

Yes, there are man-made hybrid orchids with Latin sounding names. The only one that comes to my mind at the moment is -

Paphiopedilum Maudiae!

There are many more hybrids with names that look like this. Trust me, it isn't just one or two, there are a good number of them.

Then there is also the species Paphiopedilum maudiae!!!


I often highly encourage people to observe the correct way of writing out species names vs hybrid names because of this horrible confusion.

So with this, I hope some of the confusion has been cleared up.

No need to start getting aggressive Bud, the thread was going fine.

Ramon wasn't attacking you, just making a correction. And i have to agree with him. In ecosystem terms invasive does not mean all non -native plants!
*A species that is non-native is also called an introduced species. Doesn't matter if it was introduced by an accident of nature, or as a result of man's activities.

*An introduced species which has settled and reproduces but does not disrupt the original ecosystem balance is called a naturalized species. I think this may be the same as how Ramon uses the word feral. (didn't know feral could be applied to plants)

*But an invasive species is an introduced species which has a negative impact on the original ecosystem (outcompeting native species, growing out of control to cover vast areas and being very difficult to eradicate...)

And with that, back to the original question, as Philip has done.

agressive is not in my nature, Camille...it is merely a correction...
Ramon and The Molly creature have been known to have attacked me or have been harassing me in several occations on reasons beyond my comprehension. So if I see them I am always on a deffensive attack.

invasive species as a widespread nonindigenous species. This one can be too broad, as not every nonindigenous or "introduced" species has an adverse effect on a nonindigenous environment. A nonadverse example is the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), though common outside its native range globally, it is rarely in harmful densities to a native habitat. Just like some orchid species originally from Asia brought to my Manhattan home.

but I guess I was wrong in giving a definition of species when in fact as Phillip has written...the thread was about nomenclature issue rather than definition...

Btw, if you guys want to properly denote a natural hybrid it would look like the following:

Phalaenopsis x leucorrhoda

Phalaenopsis x gernotii

Didn't know that there was Maudiae and maudiae. Making writing out the name properly all the more important.

Off the top of my head I know some other hybrids that could easily be thought to be a species if there's no capital.
Phal Wiganiae
Paph Delrosi

So the 'x' means that leucorrhoda was formed by 2 species? How do you know which they are? And if that's correct, if you make the cross yourself in cultivation, does the hybrid get names x leucorrhoda, or is it given a 'proper' hybrid name?

no species has ever been described using that name, but the hybrid has often been sold as if it were a species.

Ok, well then Paph Maudiae is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's just that it doesn't have a hybrid counterpart and a species counterpart with the same name then; it's just a complex man-made hybrid with a Latinized name.

But there are definitely other man-made hybrids that have Latinized names as was mentioned by Camille.

Philip, thank you for explaining this in a manner that doesn't make my head spin.

Camille, thank you for your contribution.

I learn so much everyday from all of you who are a wealth of knowledge. Thanks for taking the time to educate us. Kudos!!!

"....The Molly creature have been known to have attacked me or have been harassing me in several occations on reasons beyond my comprehension. So if I see them I am al..."

Excuse me!! You made the statement that is flat wrong. I just asked you a simple question.

Your aggressiveness following outlandish posts is amusing.

Lots of details on the subject here:
http://www.orchidboard.com/community...ry-hybrid.html

Just to confuse things further, Paph Maudiae is a primary hybrid (a cross of two species), rather than a complex hybrid (a cross containing at least one hybrid)

there are also cases where reclassification of species has given 2 different hybrids the same name. For example, Cattleya Sedenii (Registered as LC Sedenii in 1877), and the other Cattleya Sedenii (registered 1896)

latinized names are common for hybrids created during the victorian era, but more modern hybrids are made using English names in order to avoid these types of confusion.

Ok...

You know more about the Paph Maudiae thing...

What you said. :)

Yes, at first it was difficult to confirm, but Phal x leucorrhoda is supposed to be a natural hybrid.

If memory serves correct, (if I'm wrong, somebody can post the correction), the 2 species that make up Phal x leucorrhoda are said to be:

1.) Phal amabilis
2.) Phal stuartiana


If memory serves me correctly, (again, if I'm wrong, somebody can post the correction), Phal x gernotii is said to be a natural hybrid between:

1.) Phal amboinensis
2.) Phal venosa


If these hybrids were artificially made, I don't know how the naming would go...

WOW!!!! That's fascinating!

That cross is Phal Leda (one of the oldest man made Pal hybrids)

Phal x leucorrhoda (and the man made version Phal Leucorrhoda) are a cross of Phal aphrodite (easily confused with Phal amabilis) and Phal schilleriana (easily confused with Phal stuartiana)

I can't find any record of a Phal x gernotii, or of any natural cross of those two species. Is it possible that your plant is Phal x gersenii?
The man made hybrid of amboinensis and venosa is Phal Ambonosa

Ok. Yeah, that's correct. I didn't quite remember, but I knew it was a white Phal crossed with a well known mottle leaf.

So the correct cross for Phal x leucorrhoda is:

Phal aphrodite x Phal schilleriana

Maybe I spelled it wrong or something. There is a natural cross with Phal venosa in it. I don't recall if it was Phal amboinensis or another one of its close relatives.

Oak Hill Gardens had some for sale a long while ago.

Phal gersenii is a completely different cross (Phal violacea x Phal sumatrana).

i think everyone has answered the original question very well (asside from random unprovoked attacks...)

phillip, i have a question about the natural hybrids! is it

A) Phalaenopsis Xleucorrhoda
B) Phalaenopsis X leucorrhoda
OR
C) Phalaenopsis Xleucorrhoda

?

also, there is another phal natural hybrid, its Phal Xintermedia that is P. aphrodite XP. equestris. the man made hybrid name is Phal. Intermedia

I don't always do the italics, sometimes it's just too bothersome. That's not really the thing that confuses people the most anyways.

Whether it is:

Phal. x leucorrhoda

or

Phal. xleucorrhoda

I'm not 100% certain, but I would think it is the former:

Phal. x leucorrhoda

The latter just looks confusing, and people may confuse it for another letter in the species name.

thats what i wasnt sure about... i actually have christensons book Phalaenopsis: A Monograph sitting next to me, let me see how he does it... hahahah

he does it like.. Phalaenopsis Xveitchiana

In this case, Kavanaru was correct. Plants that are not native to an area are referred to as introduced or exotic. Invasive describes a plant's weed status. No, I didn't need to read this in a botanical book. I did my PhD in a biological sciences department and actually listened to botanists prattle on endlessly about the subject.

It might be spelled right. Neither Kew or the RHS has a record of any natural hybrid involving venosa, so it may just be a recently discovered hybrid. Phal venosa itself was not discovered until 1983

it's traditionally a multiplication sign, not the letter x:
Phalaenopsis ×leucorrhoda

if you can't type the multiplication sign, or you're worried that it might not show up properly on other peoples computers, type the letter x with a space after it:
Phalaenopsis x leucorrhoda

for naturally occuring plants, the rules are defined in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

for man-made hybrids and named clones, the rules are defined in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants

WTF? Guy, you better relax and put your paranoia aside! No one has attacked you here at all.. I was just correcting some wrong information you had posted (in this thread and in your Cycnoches chlorochilon thread)... only that! and yes, in both cases you were and are wrong! as you said, read the books first (but please, not only reading them, try to understand them as well!... ok, I must admit, this last sentence can be understood as aggressive, I would call it more a sarcastic fact :D)

if you become defensive/aggressive when you see us here, then you really have a problem, and I would suggest asking for professional help!

as for the others, sorry for the stupid direction this discussion has taken... this is my last reply to Bud on this thread...

Thanks, everyone, for the wealth of information. I'm learning a lot from this thread. Now, to further confuse things, what does this name mean: Paphiopedilum wardii 'Longford' CC/OSCOV ? It looks like a species but why is there another name after the lower-case name? :hmm

Minda, that is a Paph. wardii that received a CC Award (Cultivation Certificate, if I recall it correctly!) from the OSCOV (Orchid Society Council Of Victoria).. The name 'Longford' is the clonal name given to that particular plant, and together with the certificate CC/OSCOV should be carried in the future for that plant and all divisions taken from it... As well, in case the plant is mericloned (not very common for slippers!), the mericlones should as well carry the same name (exception, when the mericlone is mutated to an extrem that it clearly differentiates from the original plant)

clonal names are given to identify individual plants. Not awarded plants can have clonal names, but awarded plants must have a clonal name, in order to ensure which is the particular plant receiving the award.

Thanks, Ramón. Is it still a species?

A species is still a species, even if it has a clonal name. The clonal name only serves to differenciate a an individual within a species for having outstanding or unique characteristics. Hybrids can also have clonal names.

Andrew,
Thsnk you for your comment about invasive. That finally made sense. As an old farm boy I considered many plants invasive (Poison Ivy for example) and they are native.