I tried looking up these plant names. No wonder you're confused; so is everybody else. Most plant names are not so confused. But for growing conditions, just go to the Internet Orchid Species Photo Index (see below for URL) and look up Dossinia marmorata. This may be the correct name for this species.
Plants get a name when they are first described, referred to as the basionym. The name is written formally with the describing botanists' name after it and the year of the description. Plants described some time ago may have been published but not noticed by other botanists. Some plants have been described a second time by another botanist who did not know of the first description. Often a plant was not brought into cultivation right after described, and when redescribed and brought into cultivation, people use the more recent name, which they think is correct. But the basionym, properly published, is considered correct, and if another person discovers the correct initial description, the plant will be called by the original name. (There are of course exceptions.)
Later on a botanist may study the plant (or not) and determine it belongs in another genus, so the name may change again. In this case the original describer's name is written in parentheses and the renamer's name is written after that, with the year of redescription.
There has been a lot of name changing going on since DNA sequencing was applied to plants, and there will be a lot more, since botanists have barely sequenced a little bit of plant DNA and the conclusions are likely very premature.
So there may be information found under any of the previously-used names. As an example, a lot of plants once called Laelia are now called Cattleya, and some plants once called Cattleya are now called Guarianthe. Lots of hobbyists use either name for these well-known plants because they have been in cultivation a long time.
A lot of growers (but not botanists) go to the
International Orchid Species Encyclopedia
and look for the plant there. The habitat the plant comes from is usually described in some detail, so you can figure out how the orchid grows in habitat.
The person who maintains IOSPE tries to keep up with name changes by tracking down and reading original publications. Professional botanists are supposed to do this as well. Synonyms for plants will be listed. For example, if you go to IOSPE and look up Macodes lowii, you will find:
Macodes lowii (B.S.Williams) J.J.Wood 1984 - See Dossinia marmorata C.Morren 1848
If you look up Anoectochilus on IOSPE, you will find:
Anoectochilus lowii R.H. Torr. ex Loudon 1840
Synonyms Anoectochilus lowii var. virescens B.S.Williams 1862; Macodes lowii (R.H. Torr. ex Loudon) J.J. Wood 1984
The information coming from the Macodes lowii page means the plant formerly known as Macodes lowii was likely first described by a botanist named C. Morren in 1848 as Dossinia marmorata. The name Macodes lowii was given by B.S.Williams, but we don't know when. Williams may have described the plant a second time or may have decided Morren was wrong, and changed the name. I'm guessing this is what happened, because normally when a botanist decides to change the genus name of a plant, its species name stays the same. Because Morren gave it one specific name and Williams another, I'm guessing Williams was not familiar with Morren's work.
Then, in 1984, Wood decided Williams' name should be changed to Macodes lowii. I'm guessing Wood thought Williams was first describer, and didn't know of Morren's work, otherwise Wood would have changed the genus, and restored the proper original specific name marmorata. There are other explanations.
The information coming from the Anoectochilus lowii page means that in 1840 RH Torrey took Loudon's suggestion and named a newly-discovered plant Anoectochilus lowii. Also on the IOSPE page Jay Pfahl suggests the renaming involving this plant and Dossinia marmorata may be confused because people need to go back and look at the original specimens or drawings. If this species, described in 1840, is the same species Morren described in 1848 as Dossinia marmorata, then Torrey's name is correct.
If we go to Dossinia marmorata, we find a list of synonyms:
Cheirostylis marmorata (C.Morren) Lindl. ex Lem. 1848; Ludisia argyroneura Miq. 1861; Macodes lowii (B.S.Williams) J.J.Wood 1984; Macodes marmorata (C.Morren) Rchb.f. 1858
Starting from the left, in 1848, Lemaire suggested to Lindley that the plant should be put into a new genus, Cheirostylis. Lindley agreed. He knew of Morren's publication because he published this transfer, properly retaining the specific.
In 1861 Miquel published this plant with the new name Ludisia argyroneura. (It would also be possible he decided it was a synonym of the previously-published L. argyroneura, and transferred the plant, but L. a. was not described until Miquel gave the name to what was really Dossinia marmorata.) He must not have known of Morren's nor Lindley's publications, or he would have used the specific marmorata. (Or perhaps he ignored them. At that time botanists from differing countries sometimes ignored each others' work.) Miquel's renaming would not be considered valid by anybody, and L. argyroneura is not a valid name for any plant.
In 1858 Reichenbach the younger (Rchb.f.) decided the plant should be transferred from into the genus Macodes, with Morren's specific name marmorata.
The next part can't be figured out completely from the information given:
Macodes lowii (B.S.Williams) J.J.Wood 1984
This implies Wood in 1984 renamed the species in question to Macodes lowii from whatever BS Williams called it. But we don't have information about William's publication here, so we can't figure out what Williams did. Wood would not have changed the specific name unless either Wood decided the very first name Dossinia marmorata was given incorrectly by Morren, or Wood was unaware of Morren's work, which I think unlikely.
Jay Pfahl, who maintains the IOSPE Web site, seems to think the correct name is the basionym, Dossinia marmorata, but he's not a botanist. Jay suspects D. marmorata is a different plant from Anoectochilus lowii and has different flowers, but Jay writes he needs to look at the original descriptions.
There are other sites to look up names. For example, the
International Plant Names Index
and
Missouri Botanical Garden Tropicos
and
Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families
IPNI just lets you look up names and when they were published. (It gives different information about Lindley's involvement with this species than does IOSPE.) Tropicos shows the name you enter plus synonyms. The Kew checklist shows what they think are accepted names and synonyms.
Unfortunately, IPNI, Kew, Tropicos and IOSPE show differing publication information for many of these species. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Somebody hasn't done original-source research, but is publishing stuff they read somewhere else without checking sources.
Macodes lowii
Linear Mode
