True species

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by poozcard, May 27, 2011.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Jun 3, 2011 #121

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    Exit holes should be important in looking for the pollinator. Something has to escape alive to spread the pollen.
     
  2. Jun 3, 2011 #122
    well, that's somethingyou can't always be 100% sure. Normally, a new species is described by someone who is a specialist in that genus/family. However, more often than desired, "new" species are described by anybody (e.g. many sup-species, species, formas, varieties of orchids described by non professional taxonomists). In those cases you end up with the same species having several names. First comes first takes, is basically a golden rule in taxonomy. There are regular revision of families, genus and/or species, in order to alligned this chaos, and the first name given, has prevalence.

    After a revision, you can end up with different sub-species separated into two different species, or different species fused into one single one. So, this makes a second golden rule in taxonomy: revisions of taxonomic groups are needed! (this is where I see most orchid growers in conflict with taxonomy: changes are needed to keep the system "clean", based on new taxonomic information, but horticulturist do not want to change as quick)
     
  3. Jun 3, 2011 #123

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    Taxonomists get paid to make the changes
    and
    Horticulturists have to pay to make the changes.
     
  4. Jun 3, 2011 #124
    but that's nothing you can say is the fault of the "Taxonomy".
    well, neither of the "Taxonomists" nor of the "Horticulturists"...
     
  5. Jun 3, 2011 #125

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    No it's no ones fault just a fact of life.

    Taxonomists get pleasure by reorganizing the names so they like to do it and the time spent is a positive reward.

    Horticulturists don't like to rewrite labels and learn new names so they don't like name changes and the time spent relabeling is a negative reward.
     
  6. Jun 3, 2011 #126

    Rick

    Rick

    Rick

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Leiper's Fork, TN
    Here's a much better example.

    In North Vietnam where Averyanov has spent a lot of time in the forests:

    Hanginum: "found in close association with henryanum and tranlienianum"

    Micranthum: "found in close association with dianthum, henryanum, hirsuitisimum, malipoense".

    Vietnamense: "found in close association with concolor, hirsutisimum, tranlienianum"

    Hirsutisimum var esquirolii: "found in close association with dianthum, helenae, henryanum, malipoensis, tranlienianum".

    From Cash:
    Sukhakulii and calosum colonies found side by side in Thailand.

    The physical habitats all the same, some of these groups have very similar foliage characteristics within the assemblages. None of the physical requirements (even down to the microhabitat level) preclude anyone from growing these groups under identical conditions in a GH. There could just be 1 amorphous paph species at any of these sites but they have separated themselves by visual and temporal differences of the floral scape.

    Going back to temporal separation, it is for most species a completely adaptable trait to take care of seasonal variation in pollinators. Ever notice on how our Australian and African members in the southern hemisphere have their species blooming at the opposite time of year of us northern hemisphere? Davids wardii in bloom now (June) when everyone up here was blooming November/December? It's not imposible that the same species of bug for fall blooming P. purpuratum is the same as for spring blooming P calosum, but the shift in seasons is not an adaptation to physical habitat, but a biotic means of not competing for the same pollinators.

    Everything is for the pollinators, the veg is just the platform.
     
  7. Jun 3, 2011 #127

    Rick

    Rick

    Rick

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Leiper's Fork, TN
    It's not just a a close call or a sneeze, taxonomy based on a single plant is a total crap shoot.

    Most of paphs were named before the invention of the steamship, airplane, helicopter, and 4 wheel drive vehicle.
    Even more were named before the invention of digital photography.

    Many of the plant discoveries were what stood out to the eyes and minds of "gentlemen" explorers, with a commercial view (not a science priority) who fought bravely on foot with no technological support. To them every new mountain pass was a new world, and if it had 2 dots instead of 3 dots on the dorsal, it was different enough to warrant a whole new species.

    Also remember no digital record storage, publications, telephones, Google. How many explorers collected stuff from two different adjacent mountains, described and published by 2 different taxonomists in Europe and neither were able to compare notes to see how similar or dissimilar they are?

    Talking about revision. We have Garay, that in the 90's revised the name of wilhelminea (named 1930's or 1940's) by going backwards in technology. Resurrecting "gardnerii" from a photo of a 19th century drawing of a single plant!!! Not only was his revision based on the visual interpretation of a single plant, it was done with the knowledge that the geography wasn't even close.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2011 #128

    Rick

    Rick

    Rick

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    12,765
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Leiper's Fork, TN
    Yes the size of the exit hole dictates the size of the pollinator.

    Need to read:

    Pollination of a slippery lady slipper orchid in south-west China: Cypripedium guttatum (Orchidaceae): Botanical Journal of Linnean Society, 2005, 148, pgs 251-264.

    Cyp guttatum shared the site with C. flavum, C. tibeticum, and C. yunanensis and all shared blooming times.

    A total of ten species of halictid bee species visited C. guttatum flowers, but only 3 where the right size based on the size and position of the exit hole/stigmatic surface to extract pollen, contact the stigma to cause pollination. These were among the smallest of the 10 which were observed visiting flowers of the other two Cyp species, but entered and left without moving pollen.

    This paper has detailed measurements of insect thorax size and flower exit holes of all the species involved.

    of note also in this paper are the number of non-orchid plant species in bloom that shared the same habitat, and pollinators, but remain different genera (no inter-generic crosses).

    I may have to scan this and email electronic to you.
     
  9. Jun 3, 2011 #129

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    If you say that ... maybe you can tell me where to collect my pay .... I have been doing orchid taxonomy since 1978, and I have to collect my first penny for it.
     
  10. Jun 3, 2011 #130

    poozcard

    poozcard

    poozcard

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    :clap::clap:

    I just ordered your book recently.
    has not arrived yet.

    Hope you get some penny from that Prof.

    :rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:
     
  11. Jun 3, 2011 #131

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    First let me say that I don't have any problem with taxonomists getting paid, so please don't take any offense.

    There are many ways one receives payment, it is not always in the form of money. A round of applause when speaking to a group of people is a form of payment, a "reward". "Brownie points" or credit among your peer group is a form of payment.

    Maybe you have not been paid directly for writing a description or reclassifying a species but when you do... you publish it. Once published that work becomes part of your portfolio and adds "value" to your position as a professional. That added and accumulating value allows you to acquire paying jobs based on your history of work.

    If you have showed a prospective employer a list of your published work you have received value for that work. If you have ever been compensated for speaking to a group of plant lovers then you have received your "first penny" for your taxonomy work, because without that work why would you be invited to speak of consult?

    Again no offense about getting paid. Getting paid is a good thing.
     
  12. Jun 3, 2011 #132

    poozcard

    poozcard

    poozcard

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the exit holes matter, would the hair surrounding the holes matter?

    :evil::evil:
     
  13. Jun 3, 2011 #133

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    There was no offence taken ... don't worry. I was just making clear that true taxonomists do not get academic jobs anymore since the DNA nonsense is on the way.
     
  14. Jun 3, 2011 #134

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    What a shame, glorious history is coming to an end and the future sucks.
     
  15. Jun 3, 2011 #135

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    Not really, we are not death yet. Slowly but surely, the scientific community realizes that "molecular taxonomy" does not work at the species level and thereunder, and anyone who needs a lab to differentiate between anything above a species should not be doing anything in biology. We will prevail ... by the way, I already said this in 1994 in Fukuoka, but everyone laughed ... now even the statistics people agree that what the "molecular taxonomists" do is nonsense.
     
  16. Jun 3, 2011 #136

    valenzino

    valenzino

    valenzino

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    3
    Absolutely right,I talked about it after the WOC Miami with S.Daelstrom,and he also explained me how those tests have been made....complete nonsense!!!
    The thing itself is already nonsense but there is also "added bullshit" to it....You wanna do DNA test,in their way is simple...just go buy a plant tagged with the name you search and do the test...stupid...if the tag is wrong?Hahaha..they dont matter...they must do DNA test on the original tissue material of the description...they dont do it...And also everyone is doing it with different protocols and so results are different and contrasting :rollhappy:
     
  17. Jun 3, 2011 #137

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Guest

    In grad school, I did a project where I selectively "proved" various catfish genera lie outside the order Siluriformes (the catfishes) simply by varying the genes under consideration and the details of my analyses. Did a paper and presentation and angered a most of the faculty in attendance, but I very validly demonstrated my point, so I got great marks. :evil:

    Simply, very few humans understand molecular evolution well enough to use it intelligently in a taxonomic analysis. Drink a couple pitchers with Kevin de Quieroz and you'll understand.

    And the knowledge from one group can't be used on another. A gene that someone claims is good for mammals at the family level would not be good for lizards at the same level...
     
  18. Jun 4, 2011 #138

    poozcard

    poozcard

    poozcard

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. Jun 4, 2011 #139

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    Again ... don't mix gators with primates ... Animals are not plants. Secondly, there are two scientifically renowned papers that prove that the statistical packages used in the "molecular taxonomy game" give random results. Thirdly, the "molecular taxonomists" leave out all characteristics that occur only once (because camputer rogrammes can't deal with anything they can't compare) ... etc etc. (That is why Mark Chase - the Don of the molecular taxonomist gang wants all monospecific genera revoked [except for those he described himself, of course])
    Molecular taxonomy in orchids below the genus level is nonsense ... it is at simple as that. And above that level, one requires two eyes and good sense and a good training as a botanist.
     
  20. Jun 4, 2011 #140

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Ernie

    Guest

    You and I are in agreement.

    You got my point about different taxa. I've seen lizard people say 'fish folks said 18s rRNA works at the XXX level, so we chose the same region for our analysis at that level'. BS!

    I think I met Doug Soltis (one of Mark's collaborators) at a Willi Hennig meeting? I know I at least heard him speak once or twice. Agree with your assessment.

    I do believe, at some point in probably in the distant future, molecules will be more useful, but at the moment, we don't have the understanding and technology to utilize them properly and intelligently.
     

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page



arrow_white