Orchid naming, families, alliances, etc...

[notsogreenthumb]

Can someone point me to a good, concise article that explains the naming a bit.

I remember from 6th or 7th grade science class that there's the classification system that starts at Kingdom and works its way down to genus and species. Over the years, I've realized that you can have sub-species and then most often with plants, varietals.

But some of the stuff that I'm seeing in the orchid world hasn't clicked yet, so I'd like to find a decent article unless it's more simple than it seems and someone wants to explain it. I'm happy to read.

I've seen the "alliances" mentioned. (is that to keep from getting kicked off of the island?)

And then I see some plants that seem to be categorized as being a Phal or Catt or members of their alliance, but then when you see the name, neither of those names are anywhere to be found.

ie, I have a "Chyong Guu Swan 'Ruby Lip'" which I understand is a Cattleya. Is there a difference between a Cattleya and a member of the Catt alliance? "Lc. Chyong Guu Swan 'Ruby Lip' AM/OSROC (Lc. Wayndora x Persepolis)". What's it all mean?

I also have what I believe is part of the Oncidium alliance, but it seems to be called "Brascidostele Gilded Tower 'Mystic Maze' [syn. Banfieldara]" (but sometimes Banfieldara is listed instead of Brascidostele", and I've seen some mention of it once having been the Banfieldara, but is not considered a Brascidostele.

And my Phalaenopsis which I'm unsure of the identification may, I think, be a Doritaenopsis I-Hsin Sesame. Ok, so is it a Phalaenopsis or a Doritaenopsis or are those somehow not mutually exclusive.

I'd like to wrap my brain around all of this stuff.

Thanks

[Brutal_Dreamer]

This might help get you started: Orchid Names and Naming | River Valley Orchidworks


Cheers,
BD

[raybark]

Part of the problem is that taxonomists keep changing things. Doritis used to be considered a separate genus from phalaenopsis, for example. Crosses between the two were, therefore, doritaenopsis. More recently, a taxonomist decided that doritis was actually phalaenopsis after all, so all former doritaenopsis became phalaenopsis.

And that's just a simple one! Cattleyas, laelias, and sophronitis, as another example, may-, or may not be cattleyas now, depending upon who you talk to, and stuff like anacheilium have, at one point or another - sometimes reverting - been encyclia, epidendrum, and prosthechea, sometimes a single species being renamed, in addition to the change in genus.

"It's hard to keep track of the players without a program," but if you immerse yourself enough, they'll come to you.

[notsogreenthumb]

This might help get you started: Orchid Names and Naming | River Valley Orchidworks


Cheers,
BD

Great, an article like that is exactly the kind of thing that I had been searching for.

Part of the problem is that taxonomists keep changing things. Doritis used to be considered a separate genus from phalaenopsis, for example. Crosses between the two were, therefore, doritaenopsis. More recently, a taxonomist decided that doritis was actually phalaenopsis after all, so all former doritaenopsis became phalaenopsis.

And that's just a simple one! Cattleyas, laelias, and sophronitis, as another example, may-, or may not be cattleyas now, depending upon who you talk to, and stuff like anacheilium have, at one point or another - sometimes reverting - been encyclia, epidendrum, and prosthechea, sometimes a single species being renamed, in addition to the change in genus.

"It's hard to keep track of the players without a program," but if you immerse yourself enough, they'll come to you.

Yikes, what a pain! That's good to know and explains some things that I had seen.

[PaphMadMan]

I may be the only one who actually enjoys keeping up with name changes, but even with 42 years growing orchids and a botany background it can be a challenge. Most of what the taxonomists do makes sense when I take the time to examine it, but they've been doing a lot in of it in the last 20 years, and the way RHS twists it into hybrid registration has been a farce for at least 100 years.

Specifically on the alliance thing. They are horticultural conventions that don't always align with the science, and can be very narrow or very broadly defined, and not always universally agreed or applied. It can definitely be Cattleya alliance without having any Cattleya in it (by any definition), and the same for most alliances. That article is a good starting point, and you will learn. Just give yourself some time, and we're always here to help make some sense of it when you have a question.

[notsogreenthumb]

I may be the only one who actually enjoys keeping up with name changes, but even with 42 years growing orchids and a botany background it can be a challenge. Most of what the taxonomists do makes sense when I take the time to examine it, but they've been doing a lot in of it in the last 20 years, and the way RHS twists it into hybrid registration has been a farce for at least 100 years.

Specifically on the alliance thing. They are horticultural conventions that don't always align with the science, and can be very narrow or very broadly defined, and not always universally agreed or applied. It can definitely be Cattleya alliance without having any Cattleya in it (by any definition), and the same for most alliances. That article is a good starting point, and you will learn. Just give yourself some time, and we're always here to help make some sense of it when you have a question.

Cool, that makes me feel better (and worse, hahah). It sounds like I'd better get to reading!