P
Paph_LdyMacBeth
Guest
.....annnnnnd only on Slippertalk would a conversation about taxonomy be so much fun! 
No more Neofinetia, now Vanda
- Thread starter Roy
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
.....annnnnnd only on Slippertalk would a conversation about taxonomy be so much fun!
It's only on page 5, give it a couple more pages....
It's been the weekend and all the taxonomists have been partying.
:evil:
A lot of the conflict that arises here comes from the inherently different nature of taxonomy vs. horticulture.
Taxonomists are interested in finding what makes the most scientific sense with regards to plant classification. They are only interested in the phylogenetic arrangement of species and assign them to different genera accordingly. There are some pretty rigid rules they must follow when constructing different groups (e.g. monophyly), but there is enough wiggle room that two competent taxonomists can come up with different schemes for arranging groups, both with good reasoning behind them.
People on the horticultural side are interested in naming plants based on what makes the most sense for people growing the plants. It may well be that a horticulturist would prefer to break down a taxonomist's genus into subgroups because it makes more sense from a horticultural point of view. This should not be viewed as a 'wrong' practice, just something that is useful for horticulture while scientifically irrelevant.
For example, according to McCook, a taxonomist who did the only in-depth field study I know of of the phrags, Phrag. boissierianum is an extremely variable species in the wild. She considers Phrag. czerwiakowianum and Phrag. reticulatum to be synonyms of Phrag. boissierianum because they all fall within the range of normal variation for the species. However, in horticulture you can find Phrag. boissierianum, Phrag. czerwiakowianum, and Phrag. reticulatum being sold as unique species. This is because within the range of Phrag. boissierianum, it is useful to define 3 separate groups for horticultural purposes (i.e. they differ enough that they can be grown as separate 'species'). To me, this is not a conflict between taxonomy and horticulture, but rather each area using the nomenclature that is most useful to it.
I realize that the name changes the taxonomists come up with can be confusing for the horticulturalists, but there's no law out there saying the horticulturalists must immediately change their tags every time a new taxonomic scheme is unveiled.
It is also important to note that there is no single 'official' source of new taxonomic schemes. There are sometimes many competing schemes out at the same time, none of which is universally accepted. A good example in the slipper world are the competing infrageneric schemes for Paphiopedilum of Cribb vs. Braem & Chiron. This is a great (i.e. fun to think about) debate among taxonomists, but horticulturalists don't have to care at all about it, as it has no effect whatsoever on them.
Also, I would like to point out that these changes are not being proposed lightly by some rogue taxonomist out to shake up the orchid world. They are being proposed in preparation for the publication of the next volume of Genera Orchidacearum, which is probably the best, most thorough scientific treatment of orchids ever published. It's being put together by leading orchid scientists from around the world. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who will disagree with some of the conclusions reached in the series, but in order to be taken seriously there need to be logical arguments against what's been put forward. Saying 'this is how I've always done it and I'm too stubborn to change' is not a reasonable argument against good science.
People who don't want to abandon using Neofinetia for historic reasons are overlooking the fact that the species was originally described as Orchis falcata in 1784. It was transferred to Vanda in 1854. Neofinetia wasn't created until 1925. All these changes represent different understandings of the appropriate relationships between the various species in various genera. Modern molecular data is a gold mine for helping to nail down the most accurate phylogeny that should be used. That is what is driving the current changes being proposed.
I, for one, am excited by all the new research that is being done on orchid taxonomy.
--Stephen
Taxonomists are interested in finding what makes the most scientific sense with regards to plant classification. They are only interested in the phylogenetic arrangement of species and assign them to different genera accordingly. There are some pretty rigid rules they must follow when constructing different groups (e.g. monophyly), but there is enough wiggle room that two competent taxonomists can come up with different schemes for arranging groups, both with good reasoning behind them.
People on the horticultural side are interested in naming plants based on what makes the most sense for people growing the plants. It may well be that a horticulturist would prefer to break down a taxonomist's genus into subgroups because it makes more sense from a horticultural point of view. This should not be viewed as a 'wrong' practice, just something that is useful for horticulture while scientifically irrelevant.
For example, according to McCook, a taxonomist who did the only in-depth field study I know of of the phrags, Phrag. boissierianum is an extremely variable species in the wild. She considers Phrag. czerwiakowianum and Phrag. reticulatum to be synonyms of Phrag. boissierianum because they all fall within the range of normal variation for the species. However, in horticulture you can find Phrag. boissierianum, Phrag. czerwiakowianum, and Phrag. reticulatum being sold as unique species. This is because within the range of Phrag. boissierianum, it is useful to define 3 separate groups for horticultural purposes (i.e. they differ enough that they can be grown as separate 'species'). To me, this is not a conflict between taxonomy and horticulture, but rather each area using the nomenclature that is most useful to it.
I realize that the name changes the taxonomists come up with can be confusing for the horticulturalists, but there's no law out there saying the horticulturalists must immediately change their tags every time a new taxonomic scheme is unveiled.
It is also important to note that there is no single 'official' source of new taxonomic schemes. There are sometimes many competing schemes out at the same time, none of which is universally accepted. A good example in the slipper world are the competing infrageneric schemes for Paphiopedilum of Cribb vs. Braem & Chiron. This is a great (i.e. fun to think about) debate among taxonomists, but horticulturalists don't have to care at all about it, as it has no effect whatsoever on them.
Also, I would like to point out that these changes are not being proposed lightly by some rogue taxonomist out to shake up the orchid world. They are being proposed in preparation for the publication of the next volume of Genera Orchidacearum, which is probably the best, most thorough scientific treatment of orchids ever published. It's being put together by leading orchid scientists from around the world. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who will disagree with some of the conclusions reached in the series, but in order to be taken seriously there need to be logical arguments against what's been put forward. Saying 'this is how I've always done it and I'm too stubborn to change' is not a reasonable argument against good science.
People who don't want to abandon using Neofinetia for historic reasons are overlooking the fact that the species was originally described as Orchis falcata in 1784. It was transferred to Vanda in 1854. Neofinetia wasn't created until 1925. All these changes represent different understandings of the appropriate relationships between the various species in various genera. Modern molecular data is a gold mine for helping to nail down the most accurate phylogeny that should be used. That is what is driving the current changes being proposed.
I, for one, am excited by all the new research that is being done on orchid taxonomy.
--Stephen
J
John Boy
Guest
Stephen,
in a perfect world everything you just said makes total and very perfect sense. All of it does.
I understand the concept of what you’re saying, and weren’t it for the “human factor” I’d be happy to support taxonomy. However, and having said that:
and if I had it my way, I’d stop all public funding to orchid Taxonomy in a heartbeat.
Now being 40 years of age, and having been around orchids since I was 12 I have a very strong dislike for everything that comes even close to taxonomy. I would even go as far as to say: I try and keep away from most orchid-folk (in real life) as much as I possibly can. It appears to me that most orchid people collect orchids to cover personal issues, and to use society meetings to collect praise for themselves. And it’s that same principal that applies to people breeding orchids for the medals and awards, and the very same principal applied to a few taxonomists I had the “pleasure” of getting to know personally. To give these claims a face: I lived in Munich for most of my 20ies, and came to know Willi Koeniger, and eventually Luer, as his counter-part. “Hideous” is the word that connected these to people! Once you come to understand their mind-set, you’re basically upset belonging to the same species as they do, for years to come. I’ve never seen any group of people so far away from conservation as these 2. I’ve seen once in a lifetime Draculas, Bolleas and other plants that have come out of the last living forest stretches in Colombia, Peru or Bolivia to be killed in the name Science, Vanity and overall to support their little game of “Mine is bigger than yours!”
Pollinating and preserving (hence delaying the plants’ –in some cases species’- imminent/ as well as likely) extinction in return for yet another new species, to them means as little as does the entire concept of preserving something rather than to press it and put a boring text of Latin next to it. Seeing a greater picture in the face of Taxonomy appears to be utterly counterproductive. If we include our very own Uncle Guido into that same frame… it should become clear to everyone, what sort of a “Science” we’re up against.
No Sir, no Taxonomy for me please!!! I’d rather make people like that redundant and give the funding they’re flushing down the toilet in the name of vanity to Greenpeace.
in a perfect world everything you just said makes total and very perfect sense. All of it does.
I understand the concept of what you’re saying, and weren’t it for the “human factor” I’d be happy to support taxonomy. However, and having said that:
and if I had it my way, I’d stop all public funding to orchid Taxonomy in a heartbeat.
Now being 40 years of age, and having been around orchids since I was 12 I have a very strong dislike for everything that comes even close to taxonomy. I would even go as far as to say: I try and keep away from most orchid-folk (in real life) as much as I possibly can. It appears to me that most orchid people collect orchids to cover personal issues, and to use society meetings to collect praise for themselves. And it’s that same principal that applies to people breeding orchids for the medals and awards, and the very same principal applied to a few taxonomists I had the “pleasure” of getting to know personally. To give these claims a face: I lived in Munich for most of my 20ies, and came to know Willi Koeniger, and eventually Luer, as his counter-part. “Hideous” is the word that connected these to people! Once you come to understand their mind-set, you’re basically upset belonging to the same species as they do, for years to come. I’ve never seen any group of people so far away from conservation as these 2. I’ve seen once in a lifetime Draculas, Bolleas and other plants that have come out of the last living forest stretches in Colombia, Peru or Bolivia to be killed in the name Science, Vanity and overall to support their little game of “Mine is bigger than yours!”
Pollinating and preserving (hence delaying the plants’ –in some cases species’- imminent/ as well as likely) extinction in return for yet another new species, to them means as little as does the entire concept of preserving something rather than to press it and put a boring text of Latin next to it. Seeing a greater picture in the face of Taxonomy appears to be utterly counterproductive. If we include our very own Uncle Guido into that same frame… it should become clear to everyone, what sort of a “Science” we’re up against.
No Sir, no Taxonomy for me please!!! I’d rather make people like that redundant and give the funding they’re flushing down the toilet in the name of vanity to Greenpeace.
NYEric
Well-Known Member
J
John Boy
Guest
Cynical!!!
NYEric
Well-Known Member
The proper word is "jaded"!
emydura
Well-Known Member
Brett - scientists don't and should never consider the impact their decisions have on us orchid growers. Their only interest is in determining the relationships between a group of plants. Most of them probably don't even grow orchids. As technology improves and more data comes in, the taxonomy of plants will continue to change. It would make no sense for scientists to bury their heads in the sand and retain a classification structure they know is completely wrong. The taxonomic classification system is more than just a method of giving a species a name. It is also a structure that describes the relationships between a group of species. If that structure is proven to be incorrect, than it needs to change. As Stephen said, the changes have little impact on us orchid growers.
Sometimes the taxonomists do consider the impact their changes have on us. Acacia's are found in both South Africa and Australia. Only a handful occur in South Africa and around a 1000 species in Australia. Taxonomists ended up splitting the two groups into a separate genus. In theory the Australian group should have had to change their name as the South African species was classified first. But it was considered the impact it would have on the Australian group was so large they decided to bend the rules and rename the South African group. So instead of us having to call them Racosperma we can keep calling the wattles in our gardens Acacia.
Probably even fewer have seen an orchid growing in the wild.
oke:So it is OK to mess with the South Africans as long as they don't mess with the Australians? What about the South Americans that have to call them Acacia? Two against one....why did Australia win?
I perceive that the problem is that the RHS registry of orchids currently follows Kew gardens classifications, which is fine. However, the horticultural names just shouldn't be changed so quickly.
I agree with cnycharles that there should be a delay between taxonomic reclassification and horticultural reclassification. Once the new taxonomy is generally accepted and relatively stable, it can then be integrated into horticultural names. I think a period of between 20 to 40 years might be best. I'll most likely be dead by then!
I agree with cnycharles that there should be a delay between taxonomic reclassification and horticultural reclassification. Once the new taxonomy is generally accepted and relatively stable, it can then be integrated into horticultural names. I think a period of between 20 to 40 years might be best. I'll most likely be dead by then!
cattmad
Well-Known Member
David -I'm not saying that scientists should consider their impact on orchid growers, I am saying that the RHS should. The cattleya alliance debacle is a disgrace and with many AOC aligned societies refusing to accept plants labelled as their original or what became their transient name until they are relabeled in their new names most of the older cattleya growers have become well beyond jaded have a look around australia, interest in cattleyas has just died, you cant sell top plants and quality of plants hitting show benches has also dropped away dramatically, not to mention the quality of the some of the plants being awarded.
Brad
emydura
Well-Known Member
So it is OK to mess with the South Africans as long as they don't mess with the Australians? What about the South Americans that have to call them Acacia? Two against one....why did Australia win?
Whipped them like we will whip them in the cricket in a couple of weeks.
oke:I'm not sure Australia has won yet. It seems very controversial. If you are interested, here is a paper from the IBC meeting describing the discussions regarding the Acacia group. It seemed handy that the meeting was held in Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2011/00000060/00000005/art00033
I don't disagree with what you and Ross have said on this. I don't think there is an urgent need for the RHS to align with the latest taxonomy.
C
Craig Gibbon
Guest
David,
First of all, Acacia's (as we still call them here) are not restricted to South Africa but the whole of Africa and into the Arabian peninsula. As a keen tree spotter I've been watching this discussion with great interest. As far as I'm a aware, they have not settled on a name and our South African Botanists will be contesting the name change. Proposed names that were submitted were Senagalia as well as Afrocacia. My personal opinion is that African Acacia should have retained the name Acacia as the first Acacia was described from an African species and the Australian species should have changed.
As with the Neofinetia debacle, I will still refer to them as Neofinetia.
Regards,
Craig Gibbon.
www.flickr.com/photos/craig_gibbon.
First of all, Acacia's (as we still call them here) are not restricted to South Africa but the whole of Africa and into the Arabian peninsula. As a keen tree spotter I've been watching this discussion with great interest. As far as I'm a aware, they have not settled on a name and our South African Botanists will be contesting the name change. Proposed names that were submitted were Senagalia as well as Afrocacia. My personal opinion is that African Acacia should have retained the name Acacia as the first Acacia was described from an African species and the Australian species should have changed.
As with the Neofinetia debacle, I will still refer to them as Neofinetia.
Regards,
Craig Gibbon.
www.flickr.com/photos/craig_gibbon.
emydura
Well-Known Member
Thanks Craig. Yes, after reading that paper they are a lot more widespread than I had realised. Still the vast majority of species are in Australia. I would agree with you that the Australian Acacia's should change (mostly to Racosperma) rather than the African species. That is the taxonomic convention. The impact here would be pretty big. Certainly a lot more than this orchid debate. It is our biggest genus of plants and widely grown in gardens. But then you don't show wattles like orchids. But Acacia's are such a big part of our country that change would be difficult. But we would get over it, eventually.
Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm just wondering what will happen, with these constant name changes, with CITIES. I would like to think that the authorities are being updated.
NYEric
Well-Known Member
Roy
Well-Known Member
I think I've made Eric's day.
I know a few botanists and taxonomists and two have said of late to me that the genetic testing of plants is still not a precise science and needs refinement for accuracy. The people doing the genetic testing don't even agree with each other.
I feel that allows the people involved a certain leeway in how they push the findings they come up with.
So when it comes to naming and renaming based upon genetic testing, I am not convinced if it is really ready for the task yet.
I feel that allows the people involved a certain leeway in how they push the findings they come up with.
So when it comes to naming and renaming based upon genetic testing, I am not convinced if it is really ready for the task yet.
E
Eric Muehlbauer
Guest
I think that one of the objections to using molecular data in plant taxonomy is that they are not comparing genomes, but only certain genes or stretches of DNA. The feeling is that a close match for one of these genes does not indicate equivalent closeness overall, and until whole genomes can be compared, holding DNA as the final say is premature.
I have a friend studying evolutionary/taxanomic relationships in killifish. He has been doing this since 1990-something... He has found that for each each subgroup of fish he has to pretty much re-invent the wheel and find a new set of genes to sequence and analyse as these fish are so sensitive to natural selection and founder effects. I imagine that our niche-loving orchids are no different. If you use one set of genes you get one answer. Use another and you get another answer to the question of relationships. Of course, what gene set you use will depend on what question you want to answer. One friend is doing a phylogeny on Nothobranchius killifish while another friend is making a phylogeny for biogeographic purposes of Nothobranchius just for Zambia. They are using very different genes to answer their questions... Neither is wrong but neither will be right for all questions asked.
Yes, Neofinetia shares a common biology and ancestry with Vanda. Hooray. We knew that for well on close to 100 years. In a few years time someone will come along, use a different set of genes to study the small groups and Neofinetia will magically appear out of the scientific aether again.
I really don't think we, as horticulturists, should be following the taxonomists. Our groupings are based on cultural characteristics, not evolutionary theory. Let the taxonomists have their fun... They will eventually catch up with us.
