Monographs and Species Descriptions?

[FairyInTheFlowers]

So this is kinda a future dream of mine, but I've always wanted to have the monographs of the genera I'm interested in growing and breeding with. However, I don't necessarily know where to look for them and how to make sure I find ones that align closest to Kew's standard of currently accepted species. I want to eventually be so thoroughly educated on the species in question that I can identify them easily and quickly. I am a perfectionist by nature, and if there is one thing I must have perfect knowledge in, it's orchids. Any help is appreciated.

[Orchid Whisperer]

Probably the best place to start is Kew it self World Checklist of Selected Plant Families: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Search for a species, e.g. Cattleya walkeriana. Kew will direct you to the original Gardner 1843 and several other references.

If you want a copy of Gardner 1843, best place to go is a very old and well a established university library, unless you are really lucky and find a copy online.

You might be looking for monographs that cover specific topics, e.g Cattleyas of Venezuela, or orchids of many genera from a specific locale (e.g., James D. Ackerman's An Orchid Flora of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). I suspect that Kew may have reference librarians that can guide you to works they consider authoritative.

Good luck!

[FairyInTheFlowers]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a monograph is. What I'm wanting is a single book that describes an entire genus as it is currently accepted. Whether it be a collection of descriptions from past people or not, but a conglomerate of species descriptions. Like a book describing the ENTIRE genus Cattleya and it's species as we currently accept it. Something that would let me understand the unifying characteristics that we now understand a genus by.

[jkofferdahl]

Cody, I did a "Phalaenopsis" search on Amazon and came up with this.

[Orchid Whisperer]

A monograph is a detailed written study of a specific subject. The Ackerman book I mentioned might be considered a monograph, as would Monograph of the Venezuelan Cattleyas
(Aulisi, Carlos A).

There may (or may not) be a single monograph covering every orchid genus, and with all the recent changes and reassignments in orchid taxonomy, many of the existing monographs may not be completely up-to-date.

[estación seca]

Somebody who wants perfection and order should avoid botany completely. Maybe such a person should avoid science and mathematics completely. There is no settled science. A person might as well try to summarize a loved one's behavior in some mathematical formulae.

The lover of perfection may find joy in Newton's Principia, if they are able to ignore more recent stuff about subatomic particles and their interactions, and modern set theory.

A monograph devoted to one genus might contain opinions that will not be accepted by other botanists. The treatment of the genus in the monograph might not be accepted by others. The species included in - or excluded from - the monograph might be disputed by other botanists.

New species are likely to be discovered after the monograph goes to the printer, but before it is issued. Or after it is printed. Now the monograph is incomplete.

Further studies might move some of the species into other genera, and combine species. Now the monograph has been superseded.

As long as science progresses and new things are being discovered there will not be finality for generic circumscription.

If by perfect you mean a monograph devoted to a genus written by a brilliant scholar in the field who makes no mistakes and writes nothing that will change with further discoveries, you are also unlikely to find that. Most scholars make at least occasional mistakes. Printers introduce errors. Monographs are of necessity full of opinions and interpretations of incomplete data.

Different organizations take it upon themselves to have ultimate authority. Organizations are composed of people. So-called authoritative organizations are only as respected as the people who work there. Things change. Adherence to dogma rather than science is always a risk. Other scholars may have differing opinions. The people working at an organization may have a higher regard of their organization than do other scholars.

The rest of us are happy to read studies published by people who know more than we know.

[Orchid Whisperer]

e.s., well stated.

There is an example of the kind of taxonomic treatment that (at least to my understanding) T.B.A. may be looking for. Unfortunately it is in a completely different field - paleontology. The work is called the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. It consists of 64 volumes which cover invertebrate fossils to the genus level only. It is constantly being revised and parts of it are always out of date. Each volume is authored by a different person or team of authors.

Given the huge number of orchid genera and species, I fall back on my earlier suggestions. If Kew's guidance is your lodestone, start your search for information with Kew, contact them to find our which monographs they consider most reliable.

[Fairorchids]

There are books on many genera. However, in most cases, the author presents the species as he/she recognizes them. In many cases, other authorities disagree on some of them.

For example, Lance Birk has written (& updated) a book on Paphiopedilum. However, he recognizes some species, which other authorities consider to be varieties of other species.

Likewise, Cattleya deckeri is considered a species by some, or a variety of Cattleya skinneri by others.

Neofinetia falcata (now Vanda falcata) was considered to be mono-specific, but some recognize two other species (richardsiana & one with a Chinese name).

These differences will continue forever, considering that taxonomy is man made distinctions imposed on nature.

[naoki]

Cody, as Estacion mentioned, biology isn't so simplistic. That's why we are all so excited about it.

Species is something what human made up for convenience. There are many different species concepts for different goals (e.g. conservation, evolutionary biology, etc).

Taxonomy is democratic. Researchers present data, evidence to propose species hypothesis. In case of orchids, this scientific aspect is fairly weak compared to taxonomy in other plants. Each person judges and decides by himself/herself. Eventually (hopefully) consensus may arise, but it may require a long time. With new data, the hypothesis may need to be changed. So basically you have to keep up to date if you want to know the diversity of plants.

Google scholar is a convenient tool to find relevant literature. Then you can trace back from the cited reference to find the systematic treatments of the group.

[jkofferdahl]

There's a lot of good advice here. My feeling, though, is that what you're really looking for is information and a knowledge-base to help you. I don't know at this point how many orchid books and monographs I own, and have access to just about everything, but I remember how excited I was about, and how quickly I bought, Baker's Orchid Species Culture, which at the time was touted as an authority of Phalaenopsis. I love the book, and still have it around here somewhere, but I rarely consult my books these days. And I'm a reference librarian. The information on this board is every bit as useful as you'll get from books, too!

A book I WILL mention, though, is both pretty general and also relatively bland as a read, but is packed with good, basic information - Orchids to Know and Grow, by Sheehan and Black. It uses easy to understand symbols to help determine whether or not your conditions are going to support a type of orchid. It's valuable for that alone. But the underlying concept, at least as I see it, is to first determine what grows well under YOUR conditions, meaning that where you live adequately fits what they like, which is also my philosophy. My house, for example, is warm and humid, but the light isn't great, and so I do well with MOST types of Phals and Paphs. And I say most because I've just never been able to grow some certain species. High-light growers and cool temperature growers don't belong here.

This hobby takes time, and that can be the hard part. Babies, puppies, kittens, etc., respond quickly to new input. Plants don't. You have to let them, in their own, slow way, let you know when they are happy, or if they aren't. The happy ones are telling you that the conditions are comfortable, and so you can consider others like them. Books, monographs and magazines are excellent, but experience is what teaches.

Sorry if I pontificated.