Hybrids with Euanthe sanderiana parentage

[cpeters5]

Hope this is not too far off topics. I am confused by hybrid genus naming and hope someone here could help.

Since the accepted name of sanderiana is Euanthe sanderiana, what should be the correct naming of these Vanda hybrids with sanderiana in the background? I understand that Euanthe x Vanda should be called Vandanthe, but I rarely see this name being used...

What do you think?
pax

[Fairorchids]

Following the latest round of taxonomic revisions, the correct ID for Vandaceous plants with any mix of Vanda, Euanthe, Ascocenda, Neofinetia and probably several others, is simply Vanda.

For this reason, I intend to start a new organization, that will eliminate all taxonomists.

[katrina]

Originally Posted by Fairorchids

For this reason, I intend to start a new organization, that will eliminate all taxonomists.

[tropterrarium]

For once taxonomists have made your life easier (simple, easy to remember name: Vanda) and you complain?

Speaking as a taxonomist, we are not perfect, but generally are moving in the right direction (sometimes with some detours). The abolishment of the monotypic Neofinetia (monotypic genera are often suspicious) makes perfect sense. Genera are supposed to indicated something shared, and monotypic genera fail at that. This is certainly one of the mammologists' cardinal sins. [And yes, there are finer points, I've even introduced a monotypic genus myself: Sasakiconcha elegantissima; Depressizona originally was monotypic but now has two species: exorum and axiosculpta.]

Possibly learn to read phylogenetic trees and how to get to an informed opinion on proposed changes. Throwing a temper tantrum at any change is unproductive. Otherwise, why not revert to the Linnean system? Or maybe even Gessnerian system, or Aristotelean?

In case you are interested, I wrote a couple of easy read articles on systematics:
Geiger, D. L. 2012. Systematics 101 for orchid aficionados. Part 1 Species descriptions. Cymbidium Society of America Journal 12(3): 34–40.
Geiger, D. L. 2013. Systematics 101 for orchid aficionados. Part 2—Phylogenetics. Cymbidium Society of America Journal 13(1): 35–45.

I've given that also as a talk to the Orchid Society of Santa Barbara and the Conejo Orchid Society. Happy to give it other societies as well.

[AnonYMouse]

Personally, I think the powers that be should hold off changes until genetic testing is done.

It will be a while but sequenced genome will be the final word.

Sorry, veered off on a tangent.

[Fairorchids]

First of all, Neofinetia is not monotypic, there are 3 species now (of which I have two).

Secondly, lumping on this scale wipes out detail.

Thirdly, any such changes are definitions made by man, based on definitions made by man. As such, they are subject to criticism.

No. 1: Under the previous taxonomic rules, you had some guidance to plant size from the name. Granted, many Ascocendas (being 99% Vanda) were a bit misleading.

No. 2: Changing names of thousands of hybrids should not be done without very compelling reasons. Most growers won't update names on their millions of plants, so we will have a nightmare on our hands for the next 50 years.

This is even worse in the even larger Cattleya group, where changes led to multiple hybrids with the same grex name.

In the future, looking for specific traits in the plants I buy for breeding purposes, requires that I carry a computer with me at all times. And, that only helps if the seller has updated his labels.

I do not consider this progress, but rather 'ivory tower' esoterics of the worst type.

---------- Post added at 07:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------

Further, if you want to go by what species can be bred with each other, then you have to include Aerides, Rhynchostylis, Phalaenopsis, and many others. That was not done, so the partial lumping that was done is rather ill conceived.

[cpeters5]

tropterrarium, Not complaining. I do understand the complexity and the forever changing nature of orchids taxonomy. My pre-retirement work always involve classification projects in various domains. That's why after starting a collection of orchids last year, I have to collect their taxonomy as well.

Currently, I am using The Plantlist and RHS as the main sources of my database. Unfortunately, online data sources including the Plantlist and RHS are not always consistent. For example, V. sanderiana is a synonym according to the Plantlist, but not so in RHS.
When ran into an inconsistency like this I consulted other sources like e-monocot, NCBI, Uniprot or Jay Pfahl. These are the only ones I know of that are available online.

Could you experts here care to share your favorite taxo data sources for a newbie like me :-) ?

[tropterrarium]

Anonymouse: afaik, in the case of Vanda, the re-classification was done based on molecules.

Fairorchids: afaik, the other two Neofinetia species are highly controversial and are generally considered to be hybrids.

No1. My point stands: read up on systematics. Mayr & Ashlock as an old classic for instance. Maybe also Judy Winston's "Describing Species".

No2. Systematists are concerned with species (and other natural entities), not hybrids. If the hybrid system is the issue go after RHS, not after taxonomists. You're barking up the wrong tree.

In the case of Oncidium reclassification, that actually now does reflect the breeding habits, unlike the previous classification.

You may also have to get a grasp on the concept of monophyly, reciprocal monophyly, and the consequences for classification. Keeping pet groups but not dealing with the ramifications is a non-starter. If you like smaller subdivisions, there are still subgenera, tribes, sections. But even here principles of reciprocal monophyly and comprehensiveness apply.

Nobody is forced to use any system. However, if you want to be able to communicate with others, a common standard is a good idea. Re manmade system, you miss the point. It is a man-made communication device, that should reflect natural evolutionary patterns. It's not perfect, but a solid normative approach.
If you want something immutable, use LSIDs. Never mind its issues with typos, and communication.

cpeters: I think you hit pretty much the main sources. I love Jay's site, but particularly for odd-ball groups I would not put my money on it. Jay puts honest disclaimers with many groups, which is outstanding. I also consider some of the entries in the Kew list to be erroneous, but that is a matter of ongoing research; I don't expect Kew to be clairvoyant into my mind. I first have to publish it.

Systematic arrangement is subject to ongoing changes. For those who have problems with this, possibly consider stamp collecting.

[Ray]

I was speaking at the DVOC speakers day on Saturday, and Alan Koch (Gold Country Orchids) stated that he has a BS in Taxonomy, and considers taxonomy BS.

Remember - at one time, ALL orchids were epidendrums!

[tropterrarium]

Hi Ray,

That is fun-ny! But a taxonomy BS is BS. I've never heard of an undergraduate degree with that emphasis. Even UG classes in nomenclature/taxonomy/systematics are very rare. It gets touched upon in evolution, but only marginally (that's how we did it when I taught pop-gen & evolution as an upper division class).

Real systematics is only taught/learned in grad-school. I never had a single formal class in anything systematics, just learned it from books/papers, advisors, and colleagues. The best "course" is an actual project including write-up as a paper. It's swim or sink. Either you learn fast, or you wash out.

Re original Epidendrum, there was also Orchis for the terrestrial ones. I assume you know the adults-only story behind the name Orchis, which still echoes in the German common name Knabenkraut (= Boy's herb).