Now you have hit on one of my pet peeves. Today, a taxonimist has only one way of being published outside of crawling around in the wild and finding something new. They must change something, back to something found long ago, or discover an error, etc. Then they publish their findings. BUT,,, there is no peer group that reviews these studies or findings. NO one reviews the studies and says "OK go publish that we, the orchid world, will use it." No one is bound to use the findings. So, you may use the new ID if you want, but using the old one is still OK. (Seems eventually the latest names win out as the orchid world ages.) Some names need changing, some are merely for ego I think. Some I liked and used, some I ignored, but all being used now.
Story,
Dr. Guido Braem made a study of Equitant Oncidiums, recommended changing them back to Tolumnea which he found an old reference to in ancient orchid literature. He did find it and it is correct, but I said, "Guido, it is such an unattractive word Tolumnea, it's the sound you might hear when and elephant passes gas!" (Accent on the "lum") :>), He still published it.
This "changing" really screws up all the records and data publshed before that date. That's the reason current orchid books are better than having old ones, they will be using the correct (so far) names. Some names changed three times while I was busy making labels, (1960 to present) and may change again I guess.
|
Hybrid Mode
