Encyclia Euchile Prosthechea oh my
 

My latest obsession is **** citrina. I don't know what genus to use for these plants.

I'm pretty sure that it isn't really Encyclia anymore, but the resources I'm finding online bounce back and forth between Prosthechea and Euchile as where it has currently landed. It looks like the activity around these orchids has been going on since the internet, so google finds out of date documents announcing the name changes and it hard to know what is current.

I'm new to orchids and wondering which source is the most "definitive" (assuming there is such a thing)? Kew is showing Euchile, so I'm thinking that is probably right.

There is, of course, an easy fix. I could just use the indigenous name cozticoatzontecoxóchitl.

It also seems that the citrina species has now been split into citrina and karwinskii which are very similar. Either way they are lovely and I can't wait to find one or would that be two?

I have a few 'Encyclias' (I am just going to stick to that name so I remember what care I need to give it!). :)

I don't have the citrina but it is a pretty one. :)

They are not so easy to find: here in EU you can find some seeling and rarely some adult plant. As I know the main difference (also easy to check) is the white mark in the label on karwinskii. Yeah, the accepted name should be Encyclia/Euchile/Prosthechea cozticoatzontecoxóchitl :rofl:

Actually, Kew lists different 'accepted' interpretations in different places, but I can't seem to insert a link right now. RHS is using Prosthechea, but that is definitive only in the sense that RHS does have final say in what is accepted for registration of hybrids. Whether Euchile is better viewed as distinctive sisters within the Prosthechea clan or the closest cousins outside it is a scientific debate. There isn't really any question about the relationship, just where to draw an imaginary line that is convenient for humans but is otherwise meaningless.

It was crammed into Encyclia at the point when many former Epidendrums were getting split up and someone panicked or got lazy. Along with all the other current Prosthecheas it never really fit there.

They are really beautiful and I've considered it more than once. My biggest stumbling block has been the winter lows it requires in order to bloom and thrive. I don't usually get good blooming from anything that requires lows into the 40's during the winter rest phase. Just ask my Den loddigesii..it grows well but I never get good blooming on it. :blushing:

Here you go....Encyclia citrina at Santa Barbara Orchid Estate

katrina -- thanks for the link unfortunately they don't have any in stock. Several of the common on-line vendors have pages with old stock, but you have to find the parent page to see if they are available. For Santa Barbara this page:

Encyclia at Santa Barbara Orchid Estate

I also emailed and asked them if they happened to have a secret stash and just had not yet updated the page. Sadly they don't.

Whilst you are looking here is a picture of my plant to keep you going
[IMG]http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...pswn1xqfo4.jpg[/IMG]

Wow. Even more amazing than I've seen before. Do you have a photo of the whole plant? Any tips on how you grow them?

Ok WilE...now you're making me want to give it a try even though I don't think I can give it the cool it needs. Your plant is drop-dead gorgeous!!

PMM - Does the RHS really have the final say on that? I think they just respond to the taxonomic state of affairs.

If you look at the description of a species, the taxonomic authority is often appended to its name.

Ray - For naming of registered hybrids RHS does have final say in what a registered name can be, both genus (or nothogenus) and grex. They are the registration authority recognized by the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants. So those genera tend to also be reflected by awards organizations and to generally become most used in orchid horticulture.

Historically they have often been very slow (often many decades) to reflect currently accepted taxonomy (still using Brassavola digbyana 80+ years after Rhyncholaelia was proposed), then in more recent years they have sometimes been too quick to implement changes in commonly grown genera as new genetic data was causing multiple rounds of competing reclassifications (Laelia purpurata - Sophronitis purpurata - Cattleya purpurata). The way they have handled it has caused a great deal of the current dismay over "new" names by having decades of old accepted changes and multiple rounds of new raw science compounded in a period of a decade or so.

As an example, RHS (Royal Horticultural Society of the UK) tends to follow Kew (Royal Botanical Gardens of the UK). Kew accepts Prosthechea citrina and Prosthechea mariae, and so does RHS. The Plant List (a more broadly based cooperation of Kew, Missouri Botanical Gardens and others) accepts Euchile citrina and Euchile mariae. The official name of the hybrid between the 2 species is Prosthechea Marina, because RHS accepts that even though Euchile has broader acceptance.

Thanks for the kind comments, here is the whole plant taken today:

[IMG]http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...psx7p9u51y.jpg[/IMG]

I have had it for about 15 years, and it has slowly grown out in two directions from the centre, although in the last couple of years it has produced an extra non-flowering sized shoot in the centre. On bark with a wisp of coconut fibre originally, of which there is not a lot left!
It is hung from the staging in my greenhouse which is full of cacti mostly and gets full sun. The orchid benefits from the shade under the staging but still gets a few hours very bright light each day. The greenhouse has under-bench ventilators so the plant is wafting in fresh cool air all day. It gets dunked in a bucket of rainwater with weak fertilizer daily whilst flowering (the flowers are very waxy and dont mind the wet) and twice a day when in growth. Winter min temp 5C (45F).
If it's fed well it will produce 2 flowers per spike as you can see.

PMM - I might be wrong - and please take this as an effort to learn, and not a challenge - but I think you may be overinterpreting the roles of the RHS Orchid Register.

Yes, they are the authority for grex names, and I suppose that extends to hybrid genera names, as well, but I believe that they have no say whatsoever in natural generic or specific names, which are not even registered with them.

I suppose the most recent "test" in that case was Phrag kovachii. Two authorities claimed to be the first to describe it, so the first to name it. It ultimately fell to kovachii, but I truthfully don't know who had the final say, and I'd like to know! If you have a reference that will clarify it for me, I'd be grateful.

Ray - Let me try to re-state.

RHS determines grex names, by approving (or not) names submitted. RHS determines nothogenera names for all man-made hybrids. RHS determines what genus and species names are officially recorded for parents of man-made hybrids. They have complete control over all of that.

Awards organizations like AOS determine the genus/nothogenus and species names used with awards. They tend to follow RHS in this, as well as following grex registrations.

So if RHS recognizes the registration Prosthechea Marina for (Prosthechea citrina x Prosthechea mariae), and AOS awards Prosthechea mariae 'Example' AM/AOS and Prosthechea Marina 'Hypothetical' FCC/AOS, their combined influence on horticultural and general usage is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, even if most orchid taxonomists decide they prefer Euchile citrina and Euchile mariae.

It would not be correct to label something Euchile Marina if RHS never recognized that name, though it may have been Epicattleya Marina when it was first registered (not sure on that without checking) and may be something else in the future.

It would not really be correct to label something Euchile mariae 'Example' AM/AOS if AOS did not recognize that name for the award, and RHS never accepted Euchile going forward.

RHS tends to follow prevailing science of orchid naming eventually, most directly influenced by Kew. But whatever they do at the moment is the only thing that is official for registered hybrids, and that has enormous influence. Any other designation that was used for official registration at an earlier time for a specific hybrid isn't incorrect, just out-of-date.

In the Phrag kovachii case I don't recall the details, but I think it came down to what counts as acceptable publication and a difference of days or minutes. 'Acceptable' is the key. There has been some controversy over what counts as publication as modern means of publication have expanded. One or more established peer reviewed journals with full description vs. popular publications vs. the same article faxed to a couple places vs. a blog post (as an extreme example). There are rules, but rules will change over time. Final say? We can never be sure we have all the facts, so there is never a final say.

One I will be watching... Dr. Braem has made a convincing case that it should be Paph crossii rather than Paph callosum, based on prior valid publication. In this case, arguing that the earlier known but previously discounted publication was in fact valid. He may be correct, but will it ever be accepted?

PaphMadMan and Ray thanks for the very interesting discussion. It seem a lot like how they say you should never see how politics or sausage is made.

WilECoyote that is an amazingly beautiful plant you've got there. Your photo shows the blue foliage so well. How is the scent?

I haven't found a citrina or karwinskii yet, but did order a Prosthechea Marina.

Wow, what an amazing plant you have there.

All the name talk is way over my head I'm sorry to say. I do try but, wheee over it goes.

PMM - Thank you for the explanation.

I still don't see them as being the "naming authority" for species, but cannot argue about them being the "big gorilla", whose example we follow.

I know that when they last did some renaming of genera, following the authoritative work of various taxonomists, it lead to all sorts of upheaval and questions.

I guess it's a lot like my terminology and definitions related to semi-hydroponics - I may have invented the orchid culture technique and have the most experience with it, so folks tend to follow my example, for the most part, but I actually have no "governing authority" to do so.

Rothrock42,

Calorchid had some mounted the last time i was there and every time I've been by, (last year though), they don't try to push selling a lot of things, like that so they probably still have it.

Was just at Andy's and i believe I saw saw some, if you call and ask he might sell one to you...

I think hobbyists and growers alike are more than a bit annoyed with the taxonomists at the moment, but on the other side naming things has a long discombobulated but very interesting history with humanity and certainly sciences... that said, for those of us that don't take plants to shows and which includes various growers, the old or most used name gets you by just the same...

WillEcoyote... fantastic plant!

Andy doesn't have any of these available. I have asked many times. I know that Orchids for the People in California have them for sale as I just purchased two in the past couple of weeks.

Smells of lemon oil, most appropriately

Just came back across this thread. August 2016 I got a flask of Prosthechea karwinskii from Marni Turkel. The website said that she tries to get 25 seedlings in each flask. I potted them up in three "vigorous" compots and one compot of the "runts."

Almost a year later, I've sold and donated two of the compots. I kept the runt and 1 vigorous one. I've mounted or potted up 15 of the strongest growers and even the runt compot has several strong growers. Oh and I think overall there were at least 60+ in the flask and all of them made it!

Now I just need to wait two or three more years to figure out which ones are the strongest most fragrant bloomers.