K
Kevin
Guest
Thanks. So, after 38 posts, we get back to what I thought all along. I was just hoping there was a way, but it seems there isn't. Thanks for all the thoughts and discussion - I sure learned some stuff here!
What do the taxonomists use to differentiate the two genera? Other than Paphs being "Old Word" and Phrags being "New World", there must be something that differentiates them? Otherwise, they would all be reclassified into one genus.
Age has something to do with experience but it is not all that matters. I've seen a few slipper orchids in my time and I can tell you I've seen some leave o nslippers that I thought were phrags and they were paphs. End of story. I didn't make any belligerent comment to you today and now I have to go back thru all my posts to ensure that I haven't in the past. If I offended you with my "pity" emoticom I apologise. No problem.Eric, I've been doing this for 9 years (not everyone my age is inexperienced and knows nothing) and I have seen A LOT of plants in that time! I am frankly sick and tired of people assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about just because I don't have grey hair. Not all of us need a lifetime to figure things out. I'm a botany student, and I have been obsessed with these plants since I was 10. End of story.
And please, please stop it with the belligerent comments directed at me. I don't know when you decided you don't like me, but lately you can't seem to leave me alone. We never had problems before, and I've been on this forum since 2006! Sheesh...
Age has something to do with experience but it is not all that matters. I've seen a few slipper orchids in my time and I can tell you I've seen some leave o nslippers that I thought were phrags and they were paphs. End of story. I didn't make any belligerent comment to you today and now I have to go back thru all my posts to ensure that I haven't in the past. If I offended you with my "pity" emoticom I apologise. No problem.
Talk about sarcastic and passive agressive!And I really hope you don't expect me to believe that that emoticon was not a sarcastic, passive-aggressive thing to include in your comment. If you seriously can't remember a time when you were belligerent towards me then you are just oblivious to your own comments.
But I will speak no more of it here. I don't want to fight with you, especially not in public. If you have anything more to say to me then please send me a PM because I will not reply to you here.
Eric, please refer to rule 8 at http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18. While Joe's messages were certainly confrontational and could be considered insulting, you stooped to a direct ad hominem attack and insulted his masculinity. Consider this to be your first warning.Ok I would but since you've chosen not to accept PM's from me you're obviously having a hissy fit and should pull your panties back up.
All of the conduplicate guys are much more similar to each other, IMHO, than the numerous genera of oncidioid orchids. I segregated Mexipedium from Phrag, but later sunk Mex and Phrag into Paph to reflect this. For the record, I prefer keeping Mexipedium separate since it can be -- but you can accept any classification you want; Mex, traditional Phrag, and traditional Paph are each monophyletic.... and form a monophyletic group together relative to Cyp and Selen. I just made Paph names available for many Phrag species, as well as for Mex, in case others would prefer to call them all Paphs.... like some people would rather have a whole bunch of Oncidiums (or whatever the earliest legal name is) instead of a bunch of genera. Yes, molecular data currently support Mex as distinct, or as a Phrag if you like. That conclusion was based on 2 DNA regions .... and I'm not yet convinced exactly how Mex is related to Paph and Phrag, so my lab is investigating this further with a whole bunch of genes. Mex and Phrag chromosomes are considerably smaller than those of Paphs. Yes, Phrag is trilocular, Mex is at the tips & uni at midsection, and Paph is unilocular. Cyp is uni, Selen is tri. But there are three carpels there no matter what; the locularity business is just a matter of the degree of their fusion.
Yours,
Vic Albert.
http://biology.buffalo.edu/Faculty/Albert/albert.html
smartie2000;208108(I bet some taxonomists hate orchids because so many unneccessary genera were created...or so many similar species)[/QUOTE said:Well, who created all these genera in the first place, if it wasn't taxonimists? Some taxonomists might hate orchids, but what about what some orchid hobbiests think of taxonomists for making so many genera, and then constantly changing them up?
So, I started this thread, partly for myself, and partly because I was asked this question, and I thought I would ask it here, to use this vast knowledge to get a good answer, instead of replying with 'sorry, I don't know'. I was talking with my Dad today, and he does not know orchids, but is kind of familiar because of my interest. I asked him if he could tell the difference between the Paphs and Phrags I had in bloom right now. He had no clue. And rightly so - there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference, apart from being so familar with all the species, that you almost have them memorized. So, I guess I'll have to tell this person that I really don't know the answer, and not only do I not know, there doesn't seem to be an answer.
So, I started this thread, partly for myself, and partly because I was asked this question, and I thought I would ask it here, to use this vast knowledge to get a good answer, instead of replying with 'sorry, I don't know'. I was talking with my Dad today, and he does not know orchids, but is kind of familiar because of my interest. I asked him if he could tell the difference between the Paphs and Phrags I had in bloom right now. He had no clue. And rightly so - there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference, apart from being so familar with all the species, that you almost have them memorized.
What are the main features of the flowers and plant that set them apart from each other?
Without focusing on the exceptions I think you can go back to one of Tom's posts (with enhancement).
Cyps - generally found in temperate-subarctic regions of northern hemisphere, plicate (pleated) leaves, mostly deciduous in winter.
Paphs - tropical Asia and South Pacific. Conduplicate leaves, normally wide, never grass like.
Phrags - tropical South America. Conduplicate leaves, normally narrow, many are grass like.
I think they do have reason to change up some things. Sometimes the taxonomists don't get it right the first time. I always did think Laelia purpurata looked too much like a Cattleya. I am glad they made that change, it is Cattleya purpurata now and it will take time to adjust.
...
If you dont want to be confused horticultrally, I suggest not using Phrag warszewiczianum as a name. I am not sure everyone would agree with me.
This was my original question:
So, if only looking at a photo, which most of the time would only show the flower, how do you tell the difference? The answer, again, seems to be there is no answer.
Aside from all the hyper-ventilating in this thread only Rick has come close to the answer....
It is simply a matter of geography.
All the known lady's slipper orchids are separated by regions.
End of story.
Aside from all the hyper-ventilating in this thread only Rick has come close to the answer....
It is simply a matter of geography.
All the known lady's slipper orchids are separated by regions.
End of story.
Enter your email address to join: