what makes an orchid 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.

[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.

[Izzie]

This is so fascinating. I thought I'd resurrect it. See if we can get more debate about the most recent questions.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by King_of_orchid_growing:)

1. In the many species of orchids that have flowers that are monoecious (flowers have both male and female parts), the male and female parts are fused into a column.

- But there are a few species of orchids that are dioecious (flowers that are either one sex or another - that one flower is either a male or a female, not both), such as those that belong to the genus Catesetum or Cycnoches. So there can't be a fusion of male and female parts in the column with these guys because the sexes are separate.

This is not necessarily true. While some orchid flowers are monoecious, they all still possess vestiges of the male or female parts they lack. The sticky viscidium that attaches the pollinarium of a catasetum (male) flower is modified stigmatic material. Really, the column is the *one thing*. While the parts in question may be greatly modified or reduced, they are still there. All things that most people readily accept as orchids have a column. This can be variously modified (previously mentioned Catasetum; Cyprepedeoideae), but it is universal to the family. After all, the argument that keeps the Apostasioideae in question is the lack of a true column.

As for the Cypripedioidea, if we're going strictly morphologically, they fit, although genetics suggests that a closely related outgroup might make more sense.

-Cj