Name changes in the Cattleya Family

I was just reading the registrars notes from the RHS orchid Registrar (January - February 2009 Vol. 117 No.1285).

Here is a link: http://www.rhs.org.uk/Learning/publications/pubs_journals_orchid_hybrid.asp (click on October November December 2008 Registrations)

They are going to make some new changes in the Cattleya family and for registration purposes are changing the genus Sophronitis and Cattleyella to Cattleya, which will simplify and reduce the number of intergeneric hybrids. I am actually all for this change. This means that what used to be called Laelia purpurata, and for a short while was called Sophronitis purpurata is now Cattleya purpurata. I can live with calling it Cattleya purpurata (but refused to call it Sophronitis purpurata). This means that a lot of hybrids that were Sc or Lc now revert to Cattleya.

Robert

Are you surprised?

Stirring the pot a bit on this subject? LOL.....It is a sore point to many orchidists these days but also a source of amusement!

I will always think of it as Laelia purpurata. While Cattleya as a "generic" genus is a little less troublesome than Sophronitis, it will still be a Laelia to me. This dog is just too old to be learning new tricks. And I'm not gonna run out to the greenhouse to change any labels.

Let the lumpers rejoice! VICTORY!!!

Ah well, it all is a little funny really. I'm sure that little has changed for the plants themselves - they feel the same regardless of what we call them!

As the wise man once said, "you can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner."

as the Chadwicks did some years ago for the large Brazilian Laelias!!! Anyway I am not going to modify any tags!!!! Jean

LOL...This is good because it seems that I can kill only one genus!!!!

biothanasis said:

LOL...This is good because it seems that I can kill only one genus!!!!

Click to expand...

LOL :clap:



As for the rest of the discussion... It is clear that a revision of thsi group was necesary, however I think there is stil a lot of work to do... Especially, because there is no consistency in the way the decisions has been taken: Guarianthe, Brassavola and Rhyncolaelia stay outside (even is there is strong evidence of their relationship to Cattleya), while Brazilian Laelias and Sophronitis and merged to Cattleya... The DNA evidence was not 100% clear that this was the right approach but gave only a hint to one option on how to proceed...

I give it no more than 5 years until someone comes with a new revision of the group (based on DNA & Morphology) and rearange everything again, with teh subsequent changes...

so far... for me Cattleya is Cattleya, as well as Laelia is Laelia, and Sophronotis is Sophronitis...

There is some other examples where I join the OTHER group not accepting some taxonomical changes (e.g. Catasetum pileatum var. imepriales is -for me - not a different species. If you want to separate^it, then it should go to the xtapiriceps bucket!)

I think it's going to be necessary in many cases to keep the old tags in the pot, because with the consolidation of genre we will see a certain amount of "name implosion" and suddenly discover we have identically-named hybrids (yes, SOME of us DO enjoy hybrids!) with completely different backgrounds.

I don't understand the necessity of making these changes, especially over and over again. Why can't they stick with the old names until a definitive study gives conclusive results -- then make the changes once.

I agree with you Dot but that would be too easy!

Scott Ware said:

I think it's going to be necessary in many cases to keep the old tags in the pot, because with the consolidation of genre we will see a certain amount of "name implosion" and suddenly discover we have identically-named hybrids (yes, SOME of us DO enjoy hybrids!) with completely different backgrounds.

Click to expand...

Most people are keeping the old tags so far...........There already are duplications with names and more on the way with the consolidation of odontoglossum into oncidium.

This means that what used to be called Laelia purpurata, and for a short while was called Sophronitis purpurata is now Cattleya purpurata. I can live with calling it Cattleya purpurata (but refused to call it Sophronitis purpurata).



I agree with you, Robert!

I'm sure the vendors will be sticking to the original names. In regards to garden plants, the popular Potentilla fruticosa is correctly Dasiophora fruticosa but the nursery industry has not adopted the new name at all. In this era of splitting, I'm surprised they have lumped for a change. I would not be surprised at all if they end up going back to the old classification.

so does this mean my LC C.G. Roebling 'Sentinel' seedlings I was just replanting are now....Cattleya C.G. Roebling 'Sentinel'?

Renegayde said:

so does this mean my LC C.G. Roebling 'Sentinel' seedlings I was just replanting are now....Cattleya C.G. Roebling 'Sentinel'?

Click to expand...

Now this is where it gets interesting. Lc. C.G. Roebling is the grex name registered in 1895 for the cross between Cattleya gaskelliana and Laelia purpurata. In 1916 another grex was registered as C. C.G.Roebling, being Cattleya harrisoniana x Cattleya mendelii. So Lc. (currently Sc.) C.G. Roebling cannot become C. C.G. Roebling as that name refers to a completely different orchid hybrid, and this provides a fine example of the sort of confusion and errors that are going to follow from these wretched changes.

Roslyn.....WoW....thanks for that info....LOL wonder what my seedlings will be named then

We will just have two different grexes with the same name. It's not an isolated case.......This is a direct cause of the lumping of species names and the RHS including the changes in the cross registrations. Get used to the confusion.

I have some qualms about sophronitis and the rupicolous laelias being included in Cattleya. I have never thought of the purpurata group as Laelias; they were clearly Cattleyas and did not belong with the true, mexican Laelias. But after seeing Cassio's presentation, the lines are clearly NOT arbitrary and there are very sound, logical reasons for combining into cattleya. One of which is the fact that C.maxima places on the opposite side of sophronitis form the other traditional cattleyas. This means in order to have smaller genera (soph., etc.), maxima must either be its own genus or included within sophronitis or all of those included in cattleya. I do think there may be minor revisions in the near future, but most if not all of them will stay solidly cattleyas.

There is a certain amount of longing for genera which reflect not only flower and plant morphology but also cultural conditions. But I remind myself there are quite a few genera, some small and seemingly uniform, with undeniably related plants which have distinctly different cuture (paphiopedilum is one - some take direct sun (in situ) some high shade, some need 40degreesF to bloom well, and some don't ever want to be below 55degreesF) - differences in temperature, moisture requirements, light levels, etc.

So I come back to being the type of person who likes to base such things on facts and data and not on sentiment or apparent logic.

Really, once you see the cladograms and the logic behind where the lines need to be drawn, it's almost impossible to deny the conclusion.

I personally think we should all, as united group, send this useless name changing group a message to "go take a flying leap off a cliffe" and leave the labels as they were.