Quote:
Originally Posted by catwalker808
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Simple solution: Avoid floral mudblood floof. (kidding)
Quote:
|
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.
|
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
Threaded Mode
