Maxillaria spilotantha
 

Photographed at Ecuagenera's main (cooler-growing) nursery in Gualaceo, Ecuador (near Cuenca).
This is one of the Maxillarias that has two types of growth, some with bulbs and some without.
Beautiful species - makes almost a shrub when it's a big plant.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/...6bdb3915d8.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/...367292b273.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/...8a4a1f3eb1.jpg

Those look like a larger version of Max arbuscula. Thanks for posting. I always wondered what the difference between the two were.

So many leaves on the stems. It reminds me almost of my Rosemary shrub when gripped in your hand like that.

I wasn't really familiar at all with Max until I got the last project plant (Max tenifolia). So now I only really know that one. It doesn't have the leaves in the same way as this one, only really a long leaf off the top of each p-bulb.

Really great to see such a different one.

@ Rosie

The old genus Maxillaria is highly variable in growth type. From bulbous like Max. grandiflora, semi climbing like Max. tenuifolia, semi reed stem as the plant shown above, full reedstem like Max. camaridii link

Lately several new genera are split from Maxillaria.
Max. spilotantha is now known as Maxillariella spilotantha (as is tenuifolia). Another example Maxillaria sophronitis is now know as Ornithidium sophronitis. Max. camaridii is Camaridium ochroleucum.

Personally I'd don't know the reasons behind this so I have some difficulty to accept these splits and keep calling the Maxillaria.

Thanks Rob. Didn't know about change. It makes sence I guess in some ways, this is quite different from one like mine.

I love how there is always more to learn :biggrin:

Rob,
Thanks for the info. It seems very sensible. They are truly quite different from one another.
However, I'm not changing anything now. I feel like I'm doing well with the Masdevallia and Pleurothallis splits!

With the Maxillarias, the split in genera is most likely due to taxonomy using genetics.

I know that within the Maxillaria Tribe, Zygopetalinae of the Huntleya clade have been split into smaller genera.

Plants in the former Cochleanthes are now:

1. Cochleanthes
2. Warczewiczella

There are numerous other examples that are much messier to deal with, so I'll leave it this.

Absolutely. The basic concept of a genus has evolved with our understanding of genetics. A genus should be monophyletic, that is, descended from a common ancestor. Originally, genera were formed on the basis of morphological traits (the things you can see - petal shape, lip keels, ridges on ovaries, etc.). While these are still the main way of placing a species within a genus, new DNA analysis is revealing some surprising relationships and non-relationships (as in Huntleya). This is where some of the most interesting work in taxonomy is happening now.

I work in genetics (plant breeding) so I understand the concept of the new technologies. However they have their limitations to. If you could point me to some publications I would apreciate that.

I completly accept the changes in Cattleya and Laelia. Because they make sense and they group things together instead of splitting everything in small pieces. To me taxonomy is not about creating new genera but putting species in the right context this can be done without using 2 names to define a species as this is trying to put something in black and white which is completly grey. Often there are no hard lines between genera and sometimes species.

You argument of a single ancestor however will not be the only detemining factor to define a genus. Because most likely all organisms decent from the same ancestor if you go back far enough. For sure all orchids have a common ancestor.

"Huntleyas and Related Orchids" by Patricia A. Harding.

She lists her references.

The book is more about taxonomy rather than cultivation. There're only 3 to 6 pages dealing with cultivation, and it isn't much to go on.

Also just noticed there was a page on the descriptions of orchid flower anatomy along with crude hand drawn pictures for imagery. It's not basic common terminology, it's got the scientific jargon.