What got me confused. I read that they were erroneously called Epidendrums before but now called Cyrtopodiums ... so what alliance.

Thanks for the info. Cymbidium does make sense but it's still a little bit out in left field. Plants do grow a little like catasetum, but the few canes are more fibrous and never really plump up. Most of the terminal leaves do fall off, but not as cleanly as catasetums. The flower spikes are short with few flowers. And I never got spiked in my finger handling the top of the cane.

King, you're generation X ... I'm a little earlier in the alphabet.
Isurus. Just be patient. You'll get one.

[QUOTE=catwalker808;242003]
I'm a little earlier in the alphabet.
QUOTE]

Oh I love that!:rofl::rofl:
Joann

Well, in the beginnings of orchid exploration, anything that grew epiphytically was called Epidendrum. Cyrtopodium punctatum was described quite early...well before the changeover.


As for the Cymbidiiae, it is a large tribe within Orchidaceae, under which the subtribes stanhopiinae, oncidiinae, and catasetiinae all fit.

The umbrella terms and archaic names can really get confusing, which is why taxonomists are important...for clarification...you know, when they aren't mucking things up because of fad cladistics.

-Cj 'Armchair Taxonomist' M

Thank you Flowerchild. I did know that they weren't Epidendrums. I Just didn't know where Cyrtopodiums fit. Thanks to the many helpful posts, now I do.

The following is another issue since you mentioned taxonomy.
I agree that taxonomists are important. However, that doesn't mean all of the reclassifications are not a MAJOR pain. For a younger person like yourself, learning about orchid classification from the start, with the assistance of computers, the internet and related orchid databases, the task is difficult enough.

Consider the difficulty for those who have learned the multitudes of species, hybrids, their family trees and subsequent generations ... all from books, personal experience and memory. Now superimpose a complex and intertwined fine web of change onto this mesh of previous knowledge ... then try to make sense of it all, without the time or desire to go to the computers to rename and reclassify thousands of derivatives with which you come in contact on a regular basis.

The cattleya alliance, for example, is a real mess if you try to back up and sort through hundreds or thousands of complex hybrids. I don't mean just memorizing or looking up the species reclassifications. I mean applying the changes to the real world and all the complex genera out there.

I can work with the changes in species names. But I will leave it up to you Xers to correct me when I use old complex genera names.

Not picking on you. Just voicing my opinions about the plethora (or rather plague) of changes.

I got tired of changing the labels, and my records. Now I just leave the labels like they were and make a notation on my records on file. Give them two years and they will possibly change it again. I know my plants by the original names, that is good enough for me.

Marilyn

Ditto, Marilyn.

Kim

I didn't say it wasn't a pain. Or that all revisions were necessary or even logical. Frankly, i think the genetics technological horse has been put behind the cart of cladistics.

Don't assume my age equals a lack of experience. I had orchids long before i had reliable internet access. I've been growing plants of sundry sorts since i was able to walk. Don't assume laziness or ease of learning based on my generation. I much prefer a good book in hand and a magnifying glass in the field to internet learning and overreliance on fad science. Those attitudes are what muck up the system as it is.

FWIW, the resurrection of Miltoniopsis and Tolumnia were the big taxonomic deals when i first started, and i learned then to wait and see before any tags got changed. THe scientific community often ultimately rejects reorganizations, but the stuff that stands up to review will stick. If horticulturalists wouldn't rush to be *that* much more up-to-date than each other in their adherence to fad science, this wouldn't be an issue.


Simple solution: Avoid floral mudblood floof. (kidding)

Who needs to cleave to the RHS's rabid obsession with state-of-the-art taxonomy? Why wring hands over the generic recombinants, as long as you can keep the epithets straight. Or, just give up icky hybrids and stick to the species.

-Cj: Proud species snob since 1998

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I love it 'cause your not kidding!!


Hear, hear!! :bowing I couldn't agree more!