Botanists are constantly revising their opinions of what represents a species within the Orchidaceae and how orchids should best be classified. We can expect a lot of upheavals in "conventional" or "established" nomenclature in the future, particularly as more and more studies using molecular (DNA) information better illustrate the inter-relationships between species, particularly at the generic (genus) level. Of course, this is annoying to hobbyists, but such is life! Many people expect that some of the "mega-groups" (dumping grounds?) like
Dendrobium and
Bulbophyllum that contain hundreds or even thousands of species will ultimately get broken down into many much smaller genera, with just a few species ultimately "belonging" to that particular genus. Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst growers (and much re-labelling!). I suspect some people will stick to the "tried and true" names for a while, as there can be a lot of flip-flopping when taxonomists haven't quite made up their minds in the face of new ideas and new information. And of course, sometimes you're attached to the old name! (I spent quite a few years as a [fish] taxonomist-in-training, so I appreciate both sides of the argument!). Ultimately, I think it will be good to have an accurate
phylogenetic naming/classification scheme within the orchids; I imagine there are quite a lot of
polyphyletic and some
paraphyletic groups which need to be sorted out. It's going to take some time to get there though, with ~20-30,000 species!
People have managed to cope with the loss of favourite names in science before. The poster child for the rules of taxonomy, at least in Zoology, must surely be
Hyracotherium, which could be rather more beautifully referred to as
Eohippus, but unfortunately, (if I recall correctly)
Owen named its fossilised teeth(!)
Hyracotherium long before (well, 35 years before) anyone realised they belonged to a
possible ancestor of modern horses, and the rules say the oldest validly published name wins.
Eohippus means "dawn horse", whilst the significantly less mellifluous
Hyracotherium means "Hyrax-like beast". Amusingly enough, as enamel is so resistant to decay and therefore fossilises relatively easily, palaeontologists (perhaps I read it in one of Stephen Jay Gould's books/essays?) have made remarks about the fossil record of mammals mainly being along the lines of "teeth slowly evolving into different teeth"...
Of course, give it enough time, and the classification will be wrong again - orchids are still busy evolving away (as is everything else!). I have often idly speculated on what will happen to
taxonomy and
systematics once the living populations have diverged enough from the holotypes, and quite how we're going to reconcile the increasing importance of genetic techniques where
holotypes are not amenable to such study... Fortunately, the first half of this paragraph is not something we'll have to worry about in our lifetime, but the second half (matching genes up with holotypes that have irreparably damaged DNA) is going to be tricky. I suspect eventually groups like the
ICZN and
ICBN will have to establish rules, perhaps some sort of "geno-neotype" ranking - and ultimately, what they're going to do about
chronospecies which have arisen within what will then be recorded history!
I have been converted!
Linear Mode
