This whole business of name changes is one we can continue to argue about . Personally I vacillate between “ well I want to be up-to-date, so I’d better change my label” and –“ I have been growing these things as Cirrho’s ( or whatever other change is concerned) for 50 years, I refuse to call them Bulbo’s now.” But, do you know , when I started growing Paphs they were all called Cyprepediums ? and I did get used to it, after a few months and years of grumbling.
But maybe Cirrhos are in a different class. I don’t know what the DNA tells us, but morphologically it is obvious that there is a major difference between the umbels of radiating flowers in Cirrhos, and the alternative arrangements such as in B.orientale and lilacinum, the single flowers as in B.lobbii, and so on. But orchid taxonomy is all about morphology of the lip, column, etc – the shape of the parts which control pollination ; umbel –v-single flower has nothing to do with that ?
Personally I very much prefer Cirrhopetallum as a distinct group because the umbel thing is important to the look of the flowers, which is what we grow orchids for. I am happy to give it generic status, whatever Cribb, Wood et al or whoever is doing the work says at your latest reading – they have been wrong before, and changed their minds before, and I’ll bet that one day they will do so again here.
Or from another point of view, there always have been lumpers ( all Bulbos) and splitters ( two genera here). At the moment I think, lumpers are winning generally , that’s why most of the laelias and sophros are all cattleyas – which makes absolutely no sense from a growers point of view ( in the case of sophros, anyway – the big laelias certainly ought to be cattleyas , as Chadwick have said for years, so they got one right and one wrong in that group.
Hey , I’ll be running out of space…, time to go to bed, anyway.