Phalaenopsis or Doritaenopsis?

[Kuzuri]

Hey all,
I just recently purchased this plant, along with another one with the samme smaller blossoms though in a darker pink color. The label on the pot it was bought in read Phalaenopsis, but I'm not sure about that, as the blossoms are smaller than the ones on my Phals. I'll take some Pictures where you can see the size difference,

The white one is a Phal, and the pink/white one is one of the two flowers in question.

Thanks in advance for your help! Like I said, I'll upload a photo of one of my Phals next to the unidentified flowers, if you need more to figure it out.

Best wishes,
-Janni

[RandomGemini]

Yes, also a Phal.

[gnathaniel]

Pretty ones, Janni! They do appear to be among those once termed Dtps, but since the genus Doritis has been included in Phalaenopsis they're all called Phals now. Still a relevant difference culturally, IMO, as Phal. (Dor.) pulcherrima is much more tolerant than most Phal species of cool/cold temps, high light, and periods of drought. It also sometimes passes on the tendency to make new basal growths and form clumps, one of my favorite features of the species.

Welcome to OB, by the way!

[Kuzuri]

Thank you! I'm always glad to learn, and I had no idea Doritis had "become" Phals, and it just makes it even more confusing, IMO.

If I do end up with a Keiki on my hands (or rather, another, as one of my Phals has a basal Keiki at the moment too), I definitely won't complain!

[RandomGemini]

I think it makes it less confusing, at least, for me it does. Now, if it looks like a phal, it's generally a phal.

That means the culture is pretty much the same across the board. I don't have to go out of my way to research a particular species too terribly much with phals. Some do like to be warmer, some like to be slightly more or less moist, but none of that is stuff that would prevent me from buying a phal. However, there are certain cattleyas I won't purchase and certain oncidiums, due to their size or different light or watering requirements, so I have to be a LOT more choosy when looking at plants from those genera.

With a phal, I pretty much know what I am going to get.

[almiroty]

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

Pretty ones, Janni! They do appear to be among those once termed Dtps, but since the genus Doritis has been included in Phalaenopsis they're all called Phals now. Still a relevant difference culturally, IMO, as Phal. (Dor.) pulcherrima is much more tolerant than most Phal species of cool/cold temps, high light, and periods of drought. It also sometimes passes on the tendency to make new basal growths and form clumps, one of my favorite features of the species.

Welcome to OB, by the way!

Do you have any idea of when the Doritis became Phalenopsis? I have somebody who says it never happened. Just curious.

[Roberta]

I don't know exactly when Doritis was reclassified as Phalaenopsis, I think it was within the last few years. There were a bunch of other reclassifications in the Vandaceous group at the same time. The result, of course, is that all orchids that were classified as Doritaenopsis (Doritis x Phalaenopsis in any combination) are now Phalaenopsis. Culturally, there isn't any major (or mostly even minor) difference between Doritis and Phalaenopsis to begin with , so cultural needs of the hybrids are the same at any rate. The main issue is that there were a few situations where the change of genus name created ambiguity (two plants with different genus but same grex name) suddenly ended up with the same name. The way around that (same true of Cattleya, Oncidium, etc that got reclassifications) is that the year of registration is appended to the name to identify which is which.

[estación seca]

IOSPE says this:

~Doritis Lindley 1833 - See Phalaenopsis Blume 1825 SUBFAMILY Epidendroideae, TRIBE Vandeae, SUBTRIBE Aeridinae.

[ The ~ indicates it's a synonym of another genus, in this case Phalaenopsis. Lindley erected the genus Doritis in 1833. Blume had already erected Phalaenopsis in 1825.]

Under Phalaenopsis pulcherrima IOSPE says this:

Phalaenopsis pulcherrima [Lindley] J.J.Smith 1933.

That means J. J. Smith transferrered it to Phalaenopsis in 1933. Unfortunately IOSPE doesn't give the publication in which this was done. You could track it down from the other references given there.

[almiroty]

Thanks. This person vas very rude and even told me to go google it.

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

The Phalenopsis in question is a Phalenopsis sogo vivien and she insists it is a Doriatenopsis.

[Roberta]

Currently accepted name is definitely Phal. Sogo Vivien. When it was registered it was Doritaenopsis Sogo Vivien, but its name was changed as a result of the reclassification of Doritis as Phalaenopsis. (There have been lots of genus name changes due to reclassifications, based on DNA analysis)

Here is the reference from blunanta.com (an outstanding website for both species and hybrids)
Bluenanta

If you search the RHS registry, The International Orchid Register / RHS Gardening

if you look for it as Doritaenopsis it doesn't find it at all... if you enter just the grex name Sogo Vivien, it comes up as Phalaenopsis. (The RHS site, which is the system of record for all hybrid registrations, is really unfriendly. bluenanta.com is a lot easier to use)