Scientific names

[wisdomseeker]

I am not the "sharpest-tool-in-the-shed" when it comes to the scientific names of orchids (not to mention pronouncing those Latin names).

I do have 'somewhat' of a general idea about the parts of an orchid name (genus, specific epithet, subspecies/varietal/or form name, grex/hybrid, cultivars, clonal name, awards: AM/AOS, HCC/AOS). A lot of these names are hard for me to figure out, and become real gnarly trying to decipher. I often see BIN or BIC (Bic.) in front of a name and/or description - not sure what that means. Any input or advice is much appreciated!

[Bulbopedilum]

Well, things like Blc. are abbreviations of genus names used when talking about orchids, though I prefer the full genus name rather than an abbreviation like Blc.

Blc. Stands for "Brassolaeliocattleya". You can see why these can be useful at times. I'm not sure what's behind the long name though. I think it's a name for the intergeneric hybrid between Cattleya, Laelia, and Brassavola.

For example, Oncidium can be shortened into Onc.
So Oncidium ampliatum becomes Onc. ampliatum.
These can get a bit tough to remember, for example, Crths. is Coryanthes.

[Roberta]

Here's a discussion on the topic from the AOS website
AOS Beginners Newsletter
Just to make it all the more complicated, the genus (plural genera) and species names are undergoing revision based on DNA evidence changing our understanding of how things are related. (The idea behind the nomenclature IS fundamentally a description of relationships)

Many hybrids contain not just of mix of species in the same genus, but species in related genera as well. That is where we get human-made genera such as Blc (Brassavola-Laelia-Cattleya) or Brassidium (Brassia - Oncidium), some complicated combinations get named after people (Fredclarkeara, Fdk. is Catasetum-Mormodes-Clowesia, named for Fred Clarke who originated it). The names of species - orchids that exist in nature - are much simpler.

A hint on pronunciation... if the name is long, slow down and go syllable by syllable... the Latin and Greek names are pronounced pretty much the way they are spelled. A few little wrinkles (such as "ch" being pronounced "k") need to be learned (the AOS site also has pronunciations of the various genera) but the Latin and Greek are lot more regular and predictable than English for sure.

[Fairorchids]

I crated a file to try to explain the taxonomic name changes. It is posted on my web site:

Fair Orchids

It is the top file in the center column.

[wisdomseeker]

Thanks for the above replies (very helpful - brought a lot of clarity, along with a better understanding, into the picture).

Bulbopedilum ~ Now I'm starting to understand it... and I can now see why those abbreviations can be useful. Appreciate the explanation, and for taking time to reply.

Roberta ~ Thanks for the AOS link (some very good information that is easy to digest). Fredclarkeara, Fdk. (Catasetum-Mormodes-Clowesia) is definitely an eye-opener. The name makes sense, especially since you pointed out it was named after Fred Clark (who originated it). I'm sure a hefty amount of dedication, effort, and time must have been exerted into producing that cross!

The undergoing revisions (of genera and species names) that you mentioned truly adds some 'challenge' into the mix of the learning curve. Interesting about how DNA evidence is changing our understanding of how things are related. Taxonomists specializing in Bromeliaceae have been using a combination of phylogentic analyses & DNA sequences to determine how Tillandsia species (and genera) are related... e.g., Viresea espinosae vs. Tillandsia espionsae - the last I heard was: the genus Viresea will continue to be used because Viresea have appendages near the base of their flower petals, while Tillandsia lack those appendages. The wonders of modern technology! It will be interesting to see what revisions are coming down the pipe in regards to orchids.

Fairorchids - Thanks for the link! Very nice website (a lot of knowledge there). Your file "Taxonomy & Name Changes" is very well written. That one sentence really seems to put it into a new perspective - "With modern DNA analysis it has become apparent that many of the old rules and distinctions were not valid".

[estación seca]

Taxonomy is a human consensus opinion, and not reality. It can be changed in the future. The plants are what they are, and don't know anything about the categories we use for them.

We don't need to keep up with the name changes. That is the job of professional botanists working with those particular plants. It is unlikely name changing will ever be done. What matters is knowing what is the plant in front of us.

A species that was properly named (the botanical naming rules in effect at that time were followed) can always be called by that name, even if the name changes in the future. The way to show this for a species is to write the name of the botanist who named a species, after you write the name of the species.

For example: Zygostates lunata Lindley is the species Lindley named. You can look up the original description to see which plant he meant. If the name were ever to change to something else, you could still write Zygostates lunata Lindley and people would know which plant you meant.

[wisdomseeker]

Respectfully agree with your statement, "The plants are what they are, and don't know about the categories we use for them."

Kim's [Fair Orchids] signature puts a smile on my face ~ Founder of SPCOP (Society to Prevention of Cruelty to Orchid People), with the goal of barring the taxonomists from tinkering with established genera!

[Ray]

I recently gave a presentation at an orchid society whose membership included a retired taxonomist.

He told me their classifications are just "recommendations".

[naoki]

Originally Posted by Roberta

Here's a discussion on the topic from the AOS website
AOS Beginners Newsletter
Just to make it all the more complicated, the genus (plural genera) and species names are undergoing revision based on DNA evidence changing our understanding of how things are related. (The idea behind the nomenclature IS fundamentally a description of relationships)

This sounds like a nit-pick for non-biologists, but nomenclature is not a description of relationships. The description of relationships is taxonomy or systematics. Taxonomy can involves description, identification, nomenclature, and classification. So nomenclature is a part of taxonomy, and it focuses on the rules of naming (i.e. which name is considered to be invalid, which name has the priority based on the rules in the international code of nomenclature). So nomenclature doesn't involve too much of "biology" (it's just a set of artificial rules for human communication).

Taxonomy (biology - Wikipedia)
Nomenclature codes - Wikipedia