How did Sedirea end up renamed Phalaenopsis?
 

Being a plant scientist I have often wondered, since getting a Sedirea japonica last year, how it got lumped into Phals, since they barely look the same. There were genetic reasons for the lumping, so anyone know what papers or papers the decision was based on?

After seeing a thread this morning about someone's gorgeous Sedirea japonica, I started hunting for literature (not so easy anymore since I not longer have institutional access to pay-to-view literature.) and found a few phylogenetic studies that I could access. All 3 are from asian institutes, and all 3 consider them in the same clade as Phalaenopsis, but not the same sub clade. 2 papers argue that Sedirea should be lumped into Hygrochilus, based on phylogenetic and morphological characteristics. I personally find lumping it into Hygrochilus to be much more logical.

Ooh, thanks for posting this Camille. Not being a scientist, I have no clue, but I will read other people's comments with interest.

Camille, when I looked into it, I was also puzzled why they wanted to put all into Phalaenopsis. Molecular data, based on ITS and plastid DNA, were consistent with Sedirea in Hygrochilus (and possibly Ornithochilus in there). But this clade was well separated with the classic Phalaenopsis.

I think this is the paper where they proposed subgenus Hygrochilus within Phalaenopsis.
Kocyan, A. & Schuiteman, A. (2014) New combinations in Aeridinae (Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 161 (1): 61–85.
I haven't read this one yet, but I'm guessing that is more to do with convenience (avoiding a relatively small genus).

A more general question:

All this still has to be peer reviewed, right?

Even with incontrovertible data (and I'm not sure at what level of genetic analysis that is)?

All the recent reclassifying is based on genetic data?

And who decides where the lump/split cut off is (is it a consensus thing)?

Do you mean for new description or reclassification? Actually, in either case, peer-review can add more credentials, but it is not required.

Molecular systematics is one of the main force in improving our understandings. However, as the name "systematics" indicates, researchers use entire data set to provide support/rejection to taxonomic hypotheses.

Ideally, individual person decides it based on the available data. There is no single authority who dictates the scientific decision. It is a decentralized system, but we hope that the consensus appears. But I would say that it is not a completely objective system, classification could be somewhat arbitrary. If one influential researcher, who is the expert with the particular genus, makes a conclusion, many people follow his/her lead without critically evaluating the evidences.

Thanks Naoki!

Based on that info, I'M NOT CHANGING THE TAGS!!!

I'm surprised there isn't a governing body that standardizes classifications. Maybe not international but an organization everyone agrees upon (sort of ANSI-American National Standards Institute). Especially if not peer reviewed.

I suppose evolution complicates classifications at that level.

The Kew monocot list is the closest thing to a 'governing body'. However, I have no idea who at Kew decides whether proposed changes be accepted or not.

Come on now Camille, as a scientist you know this doesn't cut it these days. ;);)