what makes an orchid an orchid?

[stefpix]

Is there any plants that might be an orchid but not classified as such?

and any orchid that raises doubts and might not be an orchid?

[boytjie]

Originally Posted by stefpix

Is there any plants that might be an orchid but not classified as such?

and any orchid that raises doubts and might not be an orchid?

I heard recently somewhere (trying to find the source) that if Paphiopedilums were discovered today, they would probably not be classified as orchids. Even more confusion...?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by stefpix

Is there any plants that might be an orchid but not classified as such?

and any orchid that raises doubts and might not be an orchid?

There is some debate as to whether Apostasioideae (ie Neuwiedia and Apostasia) should be considered orchids. Part of the problem is that the column, which is considered a major distinuishing characteristic of orchids, is not completely fused and they have stamen that are held separate from the stigma (much more than Paphs). They're generally acknowledged to be on the very outskirts of the orchid family but I don't think anyone has found a strong enough reason to warrant not sending them a Christmas card.

Originally Posted by boytjie

I heard recently somewhere (trying to find the source) that if Paphiopedilums were discovered today, they would probably not be classified as orchids. Even more confusion...?

Boytjie,
If you're into the mind numbing world of parsimony trees and bootstrap analysis this paper could interest you. If you're not, forego the aneurism and just look at the pictures.

Now comes the big question: would Paph growers be offended if their beloved Paphs were ousted from the orchid family or would they applaud their segregation from the rest of that Phal and Catt riff raff.

[boytjie]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Now comes the big question: would Paph growers be offended if their beloved Paphs were ousted from the orchid family or would they applaud their segregation from the rest of that Phal and Catt riff raff.

THAT made my day.

[tropterrarium]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Boytjie,
If you're into the mind numbing world of parsimony trees and bootstrap analysis this paper could interest you. If you're not, forego the aneurism and just look at the pictures.

Just looked at that paper. They used successive approximations weighting! My goodness! This has been known for a while to produce problematic results. Even Farris (who invented the procedure) later pointed that out.

1300 bp for 171 OTUs and only 500 variable sites, no surprise they got a number of equally parsimonious resolutions. So they seem to have resolved to numbercrunch the problem out of existence. How about a second marker? COI, 16S, 18S?

Bottom line, I would not necessarily buy the Paphs basal to remainder of higher orchids, and just inside Apostasioids. Never mind the <50% BS support for the node of Cypripedoids to the higher orchids: that's a polytomy (= one can't really tell where it goes)! Even solid circles for 75-100%BS is very generous. Most people would toss anything with BS<85% out as a polytomy. Surprised they did not use decay index/Bremer's, but went for BS.

[stefpix]

If that happened I think they would all mercilessly throw all their Phaps into the compost pile and switch to Phrags

[bodaciousbonsai]

I would still grow them since they take the same requirements as orchids

[stefpix]

what is closest to orchids but not an orchid and possibly could be included as orchid or not...

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

Stefpix, I forgot the name of them. There is one group. And they're not Paphs or Phrags.

Fudge monkey! Andrew answered this question already!

[trdyl]

Andrew, thanks for the link.