New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Drorchid, May 24, 2013.
I have to prepare a talk on Cattleyas for our club. I had no idea what I was getting into!!!!!!!!! I have books that rushed to credit new name changes and so Laelia purpurata is under Sophronitis. Now of course they are all Cattleyas. Will they stay there? NO obviously not. I don't give a #$%@ about genetics, You cannot tell me that Laelia liliputana and Cattleya dormaniana and Cattleya trianiae should all be in the same genus! If so then chimps and humans should be in the same Genus. I think I will continue to recognise the names from last century until they sort it all out.
Or maybe we could use a more simple system like: The big purple one or the medium sized pink one with the yellow lip and the red spots........
Stone, you forgot to add C. (S) coccinea etc into the batch.
They would just redifine what the color purple is.
And then argue about how big 6 inches is.
i quit reading about 1/2 way down the 3rd page... but just wanted to give my .02
taxonomists are hard working and do their jobs based on hard science and genetics. it is a thankless, long, laborious, difficult job.
I too am not the biggest fan of large scale changes, for example, Laelia purpurata will ALWAYS be a Laelia in my book. but for the most these genera changes are good and generally fit. Im a pretty big lumper when it comes to species classifications, however the family is so large its hard to even make a blanket statement on that taxonomic level. i guess its just most difficult for people to accept when they are plants they have a vested interest in that is being changed. And people who have made intergeneric crosses that are then potentially being renamed without them being able to say "boo" about it. thats just wrong.
mike i TOTALLY get what your saying. especially given the difference between a liliputina and a trianae, just look at the falcata vs. something like a sanderiana. however size and form are nothing for taxonomy. literally, NOTHING. reproductive mechanisms/organs and genetics are taxonomy. and for what its worth, even tho we aint the same genus, us homosapiens and chimpanzees are in the same family, and subfamily!
I'm OK with that. But I don't see that as a reason to call a Sophronitis a Cattleya or a Neofinitia a Vanda.
Separate names with a comma.