Cattleya walkeriana and nobilior -- down the rabbit hole

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Leafmite

I think that DNA testing will be the only way that one can be absolutely positive whether an orchid 'species' is truly a species when there is some doubt.

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

It is tangled at the genus level, forget about making sense of species, even less having a chance of determining species vs hybrids... Taxonomic names are binary (either "this" or "that") but that's a human structure to try to illuminate relationships, nature is not that tidy, the "mapping" often has ambiguities and always will, the entire concept of "species" is rather fluid. Then, hybridizers mix and match, and so does nature.

[Clawhammer]

Originally Posted by Roberta

It is tangled at the genus level, forget about making sense of species, even less having a chance of determining species vs hybrids... Taxonomic names are binary (either "this" or "that") but that's a human structure to try to illuminate relationships, nature is not that tidy, the "mapping" often has ambiguities and always will, the entire concept of "species" is rather fluid. Then, hybridizers mix and match, and so does nature.

I was going to attempt to say this, glad I left it to you!

[SouthPark]

True! That's why we really don't need to focus too much on the 'race' of an orchid ----- unless it's specifically for breeding (or whatever reason). We just have to look after the orchids, and enjoy growing and watching them.

[Roberta]

The concept of "race", with no scientific basis at all (a human construct designed to divide humans based on superficial characteristics, who are all the same species, often to horrific effect), has absolutely nothing to do with orchid taxonomy. Humans, by the way, except for those whose ancestry is entirely from Africa, are actually hybrids with closely related species ... which sheds no light at all on the genetic relationships between orchid tribes, genera, and species.

[SouthPark]

This is certainly on-topic, since it relates to growers having debates or discussions on walkeriana - as in 'variety' (which in itself I agree can be 'fuzzy'), and a cross between 2 varieties (also fuzzy).

So in terms of growing humans, it would be a collector of humans saying ----- I want to have variety of human from *place 'variety' name here*.

My take on that is ----- don't focus on 'variety' (eg. don't be fixed on it or ocd on 'variety').

In another thread, I mentioned that usually nothing lasts 'forever'. So just as long as we can keep the orchid family going - no matter what members they are ----- be it 'species' or hybrid ----- then just go for it.

So later, once I do get my walkerianaS in the future, I won't be placing any importance on what it is exactly. As long as it looks like what I'm after in terms of flower appearance, then that's fantastic. And even if it turns out to not look like what I'm after --- I'd put in my best care and look after it anyway. They're all fantastic.

[Leafmite]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Shoot, taxonomists disagree more about DNA results than they do about morphological classification! Both methodologies are incredibly subjective. For example, Brazilian Laelias were lumped into Sophronitis for a while and then lumped further into Cattleya based on DNA. And it was the same taxonomist that made both changes!

I had no idea. Wow!

[SouthPark]

I can see from LM's post that quoted i-79, where i-79 mentions 'both methodologies are subjective'. Will just point out that the word he probably wanted to use is 'methods'. Not methodologies. That's because 'ology' means 'study of' or 'science of', or along those lines. So methodology is study of methods. This just means that the word methodology is not a glorified word for 'method'. It does not mean 'method'.

[Subrosa]

"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages."

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages."

hahaha. I think I can see it!

Diaper shape

But the author that calls evolution a 'mess' is probably wrong ----- since nature is nature. There is really no mess as such. It is just nature. Nature has no 'feelings' etc. It is just a 'natural' thing. Including human activity - all 'natural'.