Dendrochilum Doesn't Exist

[isurus79]

🤣😂

[Clawhammer]

Bruce ssp. bruce (18 spikes!)

[IMG]Untitled by Eric, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Roberta]

Great species. A blooming fool.

[RJSquirrel]

I'm surprised he didn't have it mounted on a 15 lb log

[Mugsie]

My orchids are named Frank, George, Linda, Cheryl, Tanya, Randy etc. It's sooo much easier, they don't mind and continue to grow well!

[DirtyCoconuts]

i will ad this to the list of things i do 'wrong' and keep calling them dendrochilums, i always thought of them as the relaxed dendrobiums, heh heh heh

[Havoccity]

In case anyone is wondering, the paper that lumped 14 genera into Coelogyne is:

"Expansion of the orchid genus Coelogyne (Arethuseae; Epidendroideae) to include Bracisepalum, Bulleyia, Chelonistele, Dendrochilum, Dickasonia, Entomophobia, Geesinkorchis, Gynoglottis, Ischnogyne, Nabaluia, Neogyna, Otochilus, Panisea and Pholidota"
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.510.2.1

Unfortunately I can't get the PDF. But I did look at some older papers and Coelogyne really was a polyphyletic mess that needed fixing. Though I'd rather they create a couple new genera from Coelogyne to account for this rather than lump 14 monophyletic genera into Coelogyne, especially since Coelogyne already had 200+ species with—as far as I can tell—monophyletic sections.

Figure below from "Phylogenetic analysis and character evolution of tribe Arethuseae (Orchidaceae) reveal a new genus Mengzia"

[Louis_W]

I agree. If that tree of life is accurate. It was in horrible need of revision. Thanks for posting that paper!

Unpopular opinion here: I for one am glad they are sussing out how closely related everything is. There is more than meets the eye to a lot of evolutionary relationships and "what we were taught" should not factor in at all. I understand that it is still a little arbitrary where we draw the species line but I happily defer to taxonomic updates as I am exposed to them.

If we are poking fun at the hoops they make us jump through to know about orchids, that's fine with me. If there is a genine animosity towards science and a feeling that horticulturalists know better, please count me out.

I hesitate to write that at all, and I am happy to discuss, but please don't bite my head off!

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Louis_W

I agree. If that tree of life is accurate. It was in horrible need of revision. Thanks for posting that paper!

Unpopular opinion here: I for one am glad they are sussing out how closely related everything is. There is more than meets the eye to a lot of evolutionary relationships and "what we were taught" should not factor in at all. I understand that it is still a little arbitrary where we draw the species line but I happily defer to taxonomic updates as I am exposed to them.

If we are poking fun at the hoops they make us jump through to know about orchids, that's fine with me. If there is a genine animosity towards science and a feeling that horticulturalists know better, please count me out.

I hesitate to write that at all, and I am happy to discuss, but please don't bite my head off!

[estación seca]

I went to the Huntington Succulent Symposium yesterday. There weren't any taxonomy talks but plants shown had names on them. Since DNA work began the plants in Cactaceae have been sliced and diced and spread all over the place. Genera once discarded are now resurrected. Easily recognized genera are being split into numerous microgenera. I don't think any of this provides clarity. It merely demonstrates every time a new tool is found people will use it to publish papers to advance their academic careers. It also demonstrates we're at the very beginning of genomic sequencing and have learned very little. It's all based on circular reasoning: Family, genus and species are undefined, but a family or genus consisits of all the plants we think belong together today. Lumping many genera into one, or many families into one, is just another way of admitting the researchers don't understand the plants well enough yet.