Lumpers vs splitters is incredibly simplistic and downright inaccurate. To paint plant systematics and taxonomy as if this is a core debate is just silly.

The only thing that accurately describes people being upset that plants are renamed is this:

https://i.imgur.com/sbyfISQ.png

I think of taxonomy as an evolutionary history. It is a family tree. Family trees do not tell you about acomplishments and personalities of the members just the lineages.

I dont think its taxonomys job to tell us how to grow plants but I do agree that we need to learn more about orchids for the sake of conservation and cultivation. I am constantly digging for in-depth information beyond culture sheets, and beginner basics, but its isnt easy to find.

I struggle with the lack of info and inadequate detail about most of these plants but i would like defend the few scientists out there who work to further that. I think they rarely deserve the pushback that they get.

It's difficult with how fast information travels these days. And entire genus can disappear into another overnight, or vice versa. It's especially difficult when one goes to purchase--for example, Lycaste locusta was (is, sort of) the accepted name, but then it was frequently published as Ida locusta for a season. Many vendors still sell it as with a Lycaste tag. Now, it's Sudamerlycaste locusta, and there's no way I'm remembering that! :rofl:

-Christian

A few years ago I tried to find the correct pronunciation for "Ida" ... I had heard it pronounced "eyeda" by some, but "eeda" by others. Looked it up, and found that it was pronounced "Sudamerlycaste" ... an improvement? Why???? I can accept lumping and splitting... taxonomy/systematics seek to show relationships, and as the understanding of those changes with DNA results, genera change to reflect what is related to what. (I'm not changing my tags, by the way) But I REALLY wonder when an entire genus gets a name change, where I don't think relationships are different... What used to be Ida contained Lycaste relatives from South America... Sudamerlycaste. (Most of what's still "Lycaste" is Central American) Another one where this happened was all the Cochleanthes becoming Warczewiczella. In both cases it looks like just going from "easy to spell/pronounce" to the opposite without adding information.

Exactly! I'm no botanist, but it seems like useless shuffling.

I guess I'm that man yelling at the clouds. :p

I call my orchids whatever is on the tag. If I am corrected, I try to use the correct name (if I can remember/spell/pronounce it).

Sounds like this is a case similar to C. leopoldii vs tigrina.
The first person to describe the species with a name gets precident. If you find an earlier description, the plant has to get renamed the older name. In that case it isnt a rearrangment to illustrate changing understanding of relationships, its just people following the naming rules. Sometimes its annoying but its credit where credit is due.

In these two cases (where a whole genus name changed) I don't think fits the "priority" situation - that applies more to specific species names. C leopoldii vs tigrina falls into that situation. I can see changing a genus where there is new information - for instance, Schomburgkias becoming either Laelia or Myrmecophila... the plants were originally grouped based on flower morphology (those wavy petals and sepals), but the plants are really quite different.

There are so many factors in this discussion, that it is hard to cover all the bases. A couple of comments:

Earliest published name in a scientific journal takes precedence. This is a Taxonomy 101 rule.

As mentioned, any previously valid name may be used. EXCEPT: If you register plants for ribbon judging, or AOS judging; in this case, we must use currently correct names. This also applies when registering new hybrids with the RHS.

Next, why the changes (I hate all of them!). Much of the early naming was based on logical, but somewhat simplistic, criteria. Prime example: 4 pollinia = Cattleya, 8 pollinia = Laelia. Today we know that both genera have the same number of chromosomes, and DNA analysis reveals that the two groups are so closely related, that they should be one (via a detour through Sophronitis, which are also Cattleyas now).

While Taxonomists keep proposing changes, by no means all are accepted. My favorite Epidendrum vitellinum (1831)/Encyclia vitellina (1961)/Prosthechea vitellina (1997) actually has a proposal for yet another name change (to Pseudoencyclia, 2003), but it has not been accepted (yet). And, when Brassavola digbyana & glauca were moved to Rhyncholaelia in 2007, it was based on a proposal from 1918 (based on differences in the lip structure)!

My scientist side 'gets it', and my horticulturist side hates it.

We lost the person in our Orchid Society that kept up with all the name changes (he did all the registering for our shows, too).