Sophronitis brevipedunculata!!!

[DelawareJim]

Originally Posted by Chris147

I have seen this picture as well, but I am not 100% sold that this is a brevipedunculata. If you look at the bulbs on the plant, they are more elongated that a brevipedunculata. Brevipedunculata have small, round pseudobulbs leading me to believe that that plant might be a coccina.

It could possibly be a coccinea, as there is some variation in the size, shape, and orientation of the bulb within this species. If I recall correctly, there are actually three forms of coccinea based on the variation of the bulbs and growth habit.

Who did you get it from? That might help determine what it is.

Also, I agree with you on the taxonomy thing. As a horticulturist who keeps up with this, I know they are correctly called Cattleyas, but to me they will always be Sophronitis. Besides, think of the wider repercussions for renaming all those intergeneric hybrids. Does Sl. 'Minipet' now become Cl. 'Minipet'? And does Slc. 'Crystal Smith' now become Clc. 'Crystal Smith', or Cl. 'Crystal Smith', or Ccl. Crystal Smith'?

Cheers.
Jim

[Chris147]

Well DelawareJim, the plant that I was talking about in what you quoted was a picture that another member found on the Internet. It is not a plant that any of us have, that I know of.

[buckie]

Also, I agree with you on the taxonomy thing. As a horticulturist who keeps up with this, I know they are correctly called Cattleyas, but to me they will always be Sophronitis. Besides, think of the wider repercussions for renaming all those intergeneric hybrids. Does Sl. 'Minipet' now become Cl. 'Minipet'? And does Slc. 'Crystal Smith' now become Clc. 'Crystal Smith', or Cl. 'Crystal Smith', or Ccl. Crystal Smith'?

To answer your question here is easy, Minipet becomes Cattleya Minipet and "Crystal Smith" is not registered.

Warren

[gnathaniel]

Originally Posted by DelawareJim

Also, I agree with you on the taxonomy thing. As a horticulturist who keeps up with this, I know they are correctly called Cattleyas, but to me they will always be Sophronitis. Besides, think of the wider repercussions for renaming all those intergeneric hybrids. Does Sl. 'Minipet' now become Cl. 'Minipet'? And does Slc. 'Crystal Smith' now become Clc. 'Crystal Smith', or Cl. 'Crystal Smith', or Ccl. Crystal Smith'?

Cheers.
Jim

Minipet and Crystelle Smith are both Cattleyas, as all of the species involved in them have been transferred to that genus.

The major problem I see with horticulturists 'striking out on their own' against accepted nomenclature is that since there is no alternate authority being invoked it introduces a great deal of inconsistency and makes what to call a plant essentially up to the arbitrary whim of each grower. All the genera we currently know (Cattleya, Dendrobium, etc.) were described at some point by some taxonomist, so why is it better to accept the determination of a self-educated botanist from the 19th century over one who has access to centuries of literature as well as sophisticated molecular and statistical analysis tools? Science moves on, it doesn't do us any good to fight it, inconvenience of changing labels or no... Just my of course, feel free to disregard my opinion!

Nice plant, Chris! I hope it grows and blooms well for you.

--Nat

[Bayard]

Binot is an orchid grower in Brazil, where C. brevipedunulata comes from.

[smweaver]

Great looking little plant you have, Chris. And it's always a relief when a shipment that travels during this time of year doesn't freeze. Can't wait to see some flowers on your plant. I think you probably do have a Sophronitis brevipedunculata (maybe some of our Brazilian members would be kind enough to give their opinions too), as the leaves and pseudobulbs on my Sophronitis coccinea plants look nothing like yours: bulbs are more oblong and tapered on both ends rather than being globular, and the leaves all have a pronounced purple streak on the center of the upper surface covering the midvein.

Steve

[Chris147]

Bayard, thanks for that. I know he said it was either a place or a grower. Thanks for clarifying. It must be a special type of this plant because he said the flowers are a whole lot bigger than normal brevipedunculata. He said around 3", which when you look at it on a ruler and compare to the size of the plant is humongous.

[goodgollymissmolly]

"...and I say "Gee, these three species look quite different, why the crap are they in the same alliance!?!? Oh yeah, silly me, it's because of some infant DNA testing that was done that lumped some pretty obvious different genera into the mess we know today."

So what are your credentials for calling the science "infant" and the statement ""pretty obvious different genera" ?

Before you join in some misguided and ignorant internet bitching, you might actually want to understand what was done and why it was done. There is a ton of PEER REVIEWED science available to study. Seems you had no problem with the original grouping of Brazilian and Mexican Laelias together even though mid 19th century taxonomists argued that they were not closely related just because both had 8 pollinia. There was a clear problem with the genus Laelia (type species L. speciosa (grandiflora) a Mexican Laelia). Numerous attempts have been made to address the problem. There were alternatives to the lumping under Cattleya, but if you don't like this I promise you wouldn't like the alternative splitting that was required for another approach.

Rather than join in the rush to ignorance, you need to know that botanical nomenclature is for the science, not for horticulture. Unfortunately for horticulture there is no documented, controlled naming system to support horticulture so it uses the scientific nomenclature system as it should. Why have two? Science will proceed forward as knowledge and analysis systems allow. So be prepared for updates as knowledge increases. Or I guess you could just put a bag over your head and leave the human race as some apparently have chosen to do.

[FairyInTheFlowers]

. . .

[DelawareJim]

Wow! Sorry I stirred up such a hornets nest on the nomenclature.

As GGMM correctly pointed out, horticulturists and the horticulture industry are under no obligation to use proper scientific nomenclature in naming plants. We do so for the same reasons as taxonomists and botanists (I am also a proper botanist hence my conundrum with nomenclature), so we know exactly which plant we are referring to. While there may be over a half dozen different "Creeping Jenny", all totally unrelated, there is only one Lysimachia nummularia, and that is why we/the trade use proper scientific names.

That said, if horticulturists and the trade want to keep calling or selling Cattleya coccinea as Sophronitis coccinea, as long as we know what we are talking about, and we all call it the same thing, there are no "rules" that say it can't be done.

I therefore, am of two minds. When I am in my scientific botanical circles, I refer to Cattleya coccinea. When I am with my horticultural circles, friends, and relaxing with my hobby (including OrchidBoard; this is a hobby remember), I refer to Sophronitis coccinea. That in no way means that I am, in any way, restistant to change, sticking my head in the sand, or some sort of Troglodyte as some have alledged. That is simply a reflection of the reality we live in.

Case in point, if you google "Cattleya coccinea", along with the long list of scientific links, the few orchid nurseries that list Cattleya coccinea, such as Oak Hill, link you to their "Sophronitis coccinea" page.

Cheers.
Jim

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Chris147

Well DelawareJim, the plant that I was talking about in what you quoted was a picture that another member found on the Internet. It is not a plant that any of us have, that I know of.

Right. I got that.

The first picture of the S. brevipedunculata in flower that Bud posted looks more like a coccinea to me, similar to my plant. Rounder pseudobulbs and lacking the purple streak in the leaf blade but still looking like a coccinea.

Yours looks like the brev. pictures I've seen; rounder pseudobulbs packed tightly together. I initially thought your were questioning whether or not your plant really was a brev.

It is a very nice plant and one I would love to have in my collection.

Cheers.
Jim