Arthur, I too wonder at the changes that have been made fairly recently in the orchid family. It seems to me that we had a system that worked fairly well, even though it contained a number of obvious imperfections. Now, hopefully after considerable thought by those much more knowledgeable about these things than me, we have a new system that may work fairly well, even though it contains a number of obvious imperfections.

At my age, and station in life, I am resolved NOT to get all steamed up over this matter. I'll do my best to keep it all straight, but when I mess up and revert back to something that is no longer "politically or botanically correct" I'll have reverted back, and all the folks out there will either have to accept it for what it is, or not.

I find it interesting that the RHS and the AOS have remained as civil toward one another as they have for as long as they have.

We humans are a peculiar bunch of birds sometimes, aren't we? OH, we aren't birds (although we do fly)......MY bad! ☺

Bill

I'm not steamed up about these changes, if I'm typing up benching results I'm happy to use the old name.

The thread is here because James wanted discussions about something other than Phalaenopsis.

Here is the tip of the Iceberg. There are many changes.

Potinara:
No longer exists because Sophronitis altered to Cattleya

Cochlioda:
No longer exists, changed to Oncidium

Odontoglossum: No longer exists, changed to Oncidium

Neofinetia:
No longer exists, changed to Vanda

Colmanara:
No longer exists because Odontoglossum altered to Oncidium

Dockrillia:
Altered back to Dendrobium

Laelia:
Some species altered to Cattleya

Removing some Genera from the Database has resulted in duplicate names and the date of registration appears in brackets to help in the id process. How many duplicates? No idea!

Found these by searching on for Mary.

C. Queen Mary (1911)

C. Queen Mary (1922)

C. Rosemary (1924)

C. Rosemary (1925)

Onc. Queen Mary

Onc. Queen Mary (1912)

Onc. Rosemary

Onc. Rosemary (1931)

So has your favourite Genera bit the dust? Go to the link in post 1 and enter the Genera name.

Say you enter Beallara.

You will find......

× Beallara auct., Orchid Rev. 78(929, noh): 1 (1970).

This name is unplaced.Distribution:Artificial hybrid or cultivar.
Accepted Name:Unplaced NameHybrid Formula:Brassia × Cochlioda × Miltonia × Odontoglossum

Family:Orchidaceae

The biggest issue I have in regards to taxonomy changes is the horticultural implications. For example consolidating Odontoglossum into Oncidium. Odontoglossum are from cloud forest regions where temperatures are cooler and humidity is high. For me the mean "walk away now." Now that oncidium is this conglomerate it is more difficult to quickly determine cultural requirement. Of course, it is not the end of the world but it is annoying.

Last month, Tom Mirenda spoke about taxonomy changes in regards to Cattleya and Laelia at a local society. The punch line was that Laelia are now only those found in Mexico. Brazilian Laelias are all Cattleyas. It really reminded me about how difficult it is to implement name changes. No one says Cattleya purpurata.

I feel the primary goal of a taxonomist is to keep employed. Secondarily to add value. A good taxonomist needs to be dedicated and focused. A full time requirement. But at this advanced day and age the effort needed is part time. Most things have been discovered and named. There is the rub. That means they create work. Not to say they can't not add value.

Plants are blissfully unaware of what we call them, and even if they were a caring type, probably wouldn't care anyway. But the human habit of pigeon-holing everything in turn demands that we define exactly what fits into a particular 'pigeon-hole' we've constructed. So plants themselves don't change, only our definitions. Either changed or refined.

On the matter of Kew and AOS, I think they're two quite different animals. Kew is bound by, let's say, scientific purity. AOS is focussed on varietal diversity. Consequently they'll see things differently.

I feel the biggest benefit I indirectly get from taxonomists is potentially better breeding. Also conservation. But when you get used to a long oddly sounding name and can even spell it and say it. And then they pull the rug. A whole new line of logic.

James, who are "they" Lol.

I'm not a Scientist, so the following may be rubbish. But just say you know a lot a about orchids and you write a very large informative book about orchids and with the knowledge gained over many years you rename some orchids. Sort of like the process when you discover something in any Scientific Field and you write a paper on your findings. This paper is then peer reviewed by other boffins .

So till changes are reviewed and accepted ( peer reviewed) by the Taxonomists at Kew they should not be accepted.

I maintain the photo library for the local orchid society and I should go through a thousand or so pics and check all the names are correct. A job that I'm not going to do for now. Similar to most orchid Nurseries, updating catalogues is a big task so do not expect to see all the name changes appear quickly.

I think you might be waiting a long time for the latest changes to be reversed.

A-Men to that, arthurm. I worked for a company once that had breeding lists back to 1949 or so. There were several volumes of this book, all hand written mostly single line entries #xxxx orchid aaaaa X orchid bbbbbb = orchid cccccc. A lot of the crosses did not have the = orchid ccccc entry because the cross was never named.

I can not imagine anyone thinking someone could go through those volumes and change anything without creating a total disaster for the companies breeding records. But then, the Taxonomists are not really concerned with that, They just want the plants to be "properly identified".

Bill......☺