Taxonomy question?

[Jerry Delaney]

I suppose you are right Shakkai. As mixed up as things are right now with orchid nomenclature, I suppose it could always be worse. It just seems that there are only two kinds of taxonomist; lumpers and splitters! It just makes a real mess when they reclassify everything. I no longer keep all these things in what's left of my mind.

[shakkai]

Jerry, I still think of my plant as Encyclia cochleata - if that's any indication of how much my mind can keep up!thin

[Jerry Delaney]

I know what you mean Shakkai. Some orchids like poor ol' Odm bictonense (sp?) has been in and out of so many genera I have no idea what they are calling it today. I once had an old (sorry, more mature) grower relate a funny story about a grower many years ago who could never remember the scientific name so he just named them after whatever they reminded him of. So, B digbyana became "Little Orphan Annie" because the frilly lip reminded him of Annie's hair. All his orchids were labled in a similar fashion. Maybe he had the right idea!

[orchideric]

First, Doritis is no more, it is part of Phalaenopsis.

Second, the reason that modern Dtps. look like Phalaenopsis is based on an old mislabelling of a Phal. hybrid as a Dtps. In short, the big round Dtps. that look like Phals NEVER had any Doritis in them to begin with. This is not a matter of horticultural selection, just an old fashioned screw up.

Third, when you cross a "Doritis" like Phal. pulcherrima with a standard Phal. you get an intermediate with pulcherrima very much visible in the hybrid.

Eric

[taipan]

Although what Rosim said is probably true regarding Doritis pulcherrima there is also D.buysoniana which some people have considered a separate species or possibly a 4N D.pulcherrima. There is also an obscure species D.wightiana which I think we have that may need to be looked at as the plant is smaller than the normal D.pulcherrima & I believe slight differences in the flower. As mentioned in another post.Eric Christenson has/had placed all Doritis, Phalaenopsis & Kingidium into Phal's. However a Japanese has since ressurected Kingidium minus & also placed Phal.gibbosa as a Kingidium & possibly others.

[orchideric]

Hey Taipan,

Doritis wightii is a synonym of Phal. deliciosa.

buyssoniana is not a 4n version of pulcherrima because when you artifically double the chromosome number of pulcherrima you do not get anything like buyssoniana. They have different distributions in nature and are truly distinct species.

There is a paper that proposes to split Phalaenopsis in half but nobody has adopted that approach to my knowledge. Like I said in other posts, the only test of taxonomy is time. Time has already pretty much rejecte a break-up of Phalaenopsis. Kind of like the proposal a while back to put Phragmipedium into Paphiopedilum. Nobody bought it and that classification faded into memory.

Eric

[taipan]

Originally Posted by orchideric

Hey Taipan,

Doritis wightii is a synonym of Phal. deliciosa.

buyssoniana is not a 4n version of pulcherrima because when you artifically double the chromosome number of pulcherrima you do not get anything like buyssoniana. They have different distributions in nature and are truly distinct species.

There is a paper that proposes to split Phalaenopsis in half but nobody has adopted that approach to my knowledge. Like I said in other posts, the only test of taxonomy is time. Time has already pretty much rejecte a break-up of Phalaenopsis. Kind of like the proposal a while back to put Phragmipedium into Paphiopedilum. Nobody bought it and that classification faded into memory.

Eric

Eric
I apologise for the D.wightii. I should have checked it before I wrote the comment. Actually the other species ( if genuine ) is Doritis regnieriana ( Rchb.f.) Holtum - which is the one I meant.
My comment was meant to tell "Rosim" that Doritis was not a monotypic genus as he mentioned