Thecostele alata

[gnathaniel]

CL, 'alliance' in the sense you're using it doesn't have any real referent beyond the way it's used on OB. What we deem 'alliance' here usually seems to correspond loosely with the tribe or subtribe level, and since both you and Glen agree that Thecostele are in the tribe Cymbidieae, where's the problem? Yes, some subtribes like Oncidiinae are broken out into their own 'alliances,' but the Cymbidium 'alliance' here also explicitly includes genera like Eulophia and Cyrtopodium that aren't in subtribe Cymbidiinae anymore than Thecostele. If we lump everything in subfamily Epidendroideae into one forum then Cymbidium and most of the other epiphytes would belong there, too, which to me seems somewhat contrary to the spirit of your prior proposal to move Thecostele elsewhere...

[Cym Ladye]

Nat,

I am not certain what references the original OB founders used to assign their "Alliances" but it obviously was a rather loose interpretation of the scientific classification, perhaps to account for all the little species like this one that were not large enough for their own classifications. My problem, and not a purely taxonomic one, is that the majority of these other genera do not breed with or are grown under the same conditions as Cymbidiums. It just needs to be made clear in the answers to the questioners in this OB Alliance that in most parts of the world, these should not be considered true "Cymbidium Companion" plants.

CL

[gnathaniel]

I 100% agree that the term 'alliance' as used on this forum has no consistent correspondence to anything beyond very general taxonomic relatedness. While this creates an ambiguity of sense (same word-sign, different but somewhat related meanings) with the term 'alliance' as sometimes used by taxonomists, there's never been any apparent effort or intent to use it in the taxonomic sense here.

I see many problems with segregating the current forums based on growing conditions or breeding efforts but probably not worth going into here. Personally I see nothing wrong with Glen posting an obscure but beautiful genus in a forum devoted to a loosely-related group that as currently constituted does include that genus, but if you don't like it then you always have the option of not reading the post, right?

[Cym Ladye]

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

I 100% agree that the term 'alliance' as used on this forum has no consistent correspondence to anything beyond very general taxonomic relatedness. ..........but if you don't like it then you always have the option of not reading the post, right?

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

CL