Exit holes should be important in looking for the pollinator. Something has to escape alive to spread the pollen.
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.How do you know if a single plant is new, or just a variant within a population unless you conduct a population survey?
(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)
Taxonomists get paid to make the changes
and
Horticulturists have to pay to make the changes.
but that's nothing you can say is the fault of the "Taxonomy".
well, neither of the "Taxonomists" nor of the "Horticulturists"...
Maybe each species blooms at different seasonal periods so the two species are not in flower at the same time?
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)
Agree.
exul blooms during Jan-Feb
niveum+leuco during April-May
So natural hybrid between exul and other 2 there is not seen. I never seen/heard any of it.
Moreover, it may not be the same pollinator.
niveum may have the same pollinator with leuco, but not exul.
Shall we look at the exit door for pollinator getting out from the pouch? There are 2 holes next to staminode/column.
I think the holes are one way by the paphs, to select which insect shoud be a pollinator.
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.Taxonomists get paid to make the changes
and
Horticulturists have to pay to make the changes.
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.
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.
Exit holes should be important in looking for the pollinator. Something has to escape alive to spread the pollen.
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.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.
I was just making clear that true taxonomists do not get academic jobs anymore since the DNA nonsense is on the way.
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.What a shame, glorious history is coming to an end and the future sucks.
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.
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])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...
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.
Enter your email address to join: