Dendrobiums to Thelychitons

[shadec]

i dont know if this has been mentioned before, but the two very popular native orchid (here in Australia) have had their names changed due to technicalities, from D. kingianum to Thelychiton kingianus and from D. speciosum to Thelychiton speciosus.
anyway,

-J

[shadec]

it seems that all native Australian dendrobiums have been changed to Thelychitons

[Andrew]

Thelychiton is only one of several new Australian genera to come out of the Dendrobium split in 2002. The genus was split because phylogenetic analysis showed that certain Dendrobium species are more closely related to species within other established genera than to other species within Dendrobium. The new Australian genera are described in David Jones's 2006 book A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia. Kabi ANOS gives a summary of the name changes on their website for those not interested in getting hold of the book.

Thelychiton now encompasses what was formerly adae, brachypus, falcorostrum, finniganense, fleckerii, gracilicaule, kingianum, jonesii, macropus, moorei and speciosum. Currently the Australian herbaria have accepted the Dendrobium changes so expect to see these new names mentioned in Australian publications in the future. Kew and ergo RHS have not accepted them, so hybrids are still going to be registered as Dendrobium and any society that follows the Kew's/RHS's naming conventions (eg the AOC) will list and award Thelychiton as Dendrobium. I am, however, puzzled why Kew maintains a taxonomic paradox by not accepting the Dendrobium split but still accepting the genera like Flickingeria, Cadetia and Diplocaulobium, which were reported to lay within the Dendrobium clades.

Bottom line, there is no real need to change your labels if you're Australian but you may want to be aware of them if you grow a lot of Australian species. If you're not Australian the new names are largely irrelevant for the moment.

[Tom-DE]

I agree. Thank you, Andrew.

[shadec]

i knew it was mostly unimportant for you guys over there, but i hadnt heard of it yet, so i didnt know if anyone else had!
thanks
-J

[Andrew]

From what I can judge by reading various Australian orchid society journals, most general orchid societies (which presumably reflects the attitude of their members) largely ignore the new names in their articles. ANOS groups tend to more openly acknowledge the new names although there is still a lot of resistance to adopting the new names by native orchid growers. Some of the more botanically directed literature such as field guides etc are starting to use the new names.

Another point is that, as the RHS is still standing by the lumping of Dendrobium, even if you want to use the new names for the species presumably Dendrobium should be used for artificial intra- and intergeneric hybrids.

[orchideric]

Dear Andrew,

There is no paradox, just a big lie - that classifications based on DNA analysis are wholly objective unlike the horrid subjective classificatons they profess to replace. Truth be told, classifications based on DNA are every bit as subjective as other classifications. Same plants, same DNA, and yet molecular systematists come up with more than one classification.

Thus Robert Dressler and Norris Williams put Oncidium ampliatum into a new monotypic genus Chelyorchis based on DNA. Before the dust settled, Mark Chase and Norris Williams forced the same species into Rossioglossum. Same DNA!

So the splitters and lumpers now defend their positions with DNA. There are still the personal animosities that largely fuel which classification is put forward as this week's final answer.

What a world, what a world, Eric