Why Was Neofinetia Changed to Vanda?

[NYCorchidman]

Originally Posted by SilverShaded

Humans are in the order of Primates.

I think you are confused.
Order is much higher ranking than genus, which vanda is.

Human is a totally different species than monkeys or chimpanzees. not even in the same genus.

[SilverShaded]

Hmm, on second reading i thnk i got what your were struggling to say. I don't think its a good example though, humans are placed were they are for reasons other than good science.

[NYCorchidman]

I don't know what you are talking about, especially the latter part of your comment.

"..humans are placed were they are for reasons other than good science."

We are talking about science. After all, the classification system is based on science, is it not?

My last comment was to point out that yours was not a good example.
Let me say it one more time.
You were comparing genus vs order, and order is a bit higher in the biological classification.
Let me break it down for you just in case.
The lowest is species and then genus, family, order, class, and then a few more up.

Vanda is a genus and primate, which you used to compare, is an order as you say.
So I don't understand what you are talking about.

Lastly, I think my comments were all quite straightforward and easy. no struggling here.
Perhaps you are struggling to understand the point?
I don't like such shady way to communicate.

Or, if an expression "struggle to do something" is the same as "try to do something" as is used here, then I apologize for overreacting, although I think I've heard British people say the same way as Americans in this regard. I can confirm as I have friends in UK.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by NYCorchidman

I don't know what you are talking about, especially the latter part of your comment.

"..humans are placed were they are for reasons other than good science."

We are talking about science. After all, the classification system is based on science, is it not?

My last comment was to point out that yours was not a good example.
Let me say it one more time.
You were comparing genus vs order, and order is a bit higher in the biological classification.
Let me break it down for you just in case.
The lowest is species and then genus, family, order, class, and then a few more up.

Vanda is a genus and primate, which you used to compare, is an order as you say.
So I don't understand what you are talking about.

Lastly, I think my comments were all quite straightforward and easy. no struggling here.
Perhaps you are struggling to understand the point?
I don't like such shady way to communicate.

Or, if an expression "struggle to do something" is the same as "try to do something" as is used here, then I apologize for overreacting, although I think I've heard British people say the same way as Americans in this regard. I can confirm as I have friends in UK.

Well to address one point, while indeed we are talking science, we are human beings talking science. The current taxonomy of the human species is solidly based in science on one hand, but most definitely subject to the human touch (for want of a better term) on the other. There is currently one species of human being with no recognized subspecies. In some non human species the subspecific distinction is granted for smaller differences than exist between various populations of humans.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Fairorchids

This whole issue has no clear answer. Any taxonomic distinctions are entirely man made (and orchids don't read books, so they don't care). And, orchids make it more difficult to evaluate, since plants that are quite distantly related can breed, and produce non-sterile offspring!

This latter is important, when you consider that you can breed a zebra with a donkey. Most matings do not produce offspring, but a few do. However, all offspring are sterile (just like horse x donkey = mule).

What does this tell us? They are obviously related, otherwise they could not breed at all. However, do they belong to the same genus or not?

I was very upset with the changes, untill I decided to simply ignore the taxonomists, and stay with the traditional visual distinctions.

Don't forget that many Dendrobium species can't produce viable offspring with other Dendrobium species in different section! The ability to produce viable offspring isn't necessarily a great baseline from which to determine relatedness.

On another note, it still boggles my mind that the splitters haven't really done much to chop up the Dends or the Bulbo. Both groups are HUGE!!

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Don't forget that many Dendrobium species can't produce viable offspring with other Dendrobium species in different section! The ability to produce viable offspring isn't necessarily a great baseline from which to determine relatedness.

On another note, it still boggles my mind that the splitters haven't really done much to chop up the Dends or the Bulbo. Both groups are HUGE!!

They'll probably get around to splitting those as well, eventually.... We may have to except some changes in Pleurothallis as well. That group is also huge, since apparently that genus has been a dumping ground for everything that didn't fit elsewhere.... A scientist I know at the University of Leiden (well known Dutch uni in the field of Botany), has disappeared off to Costa Rica for a couple years to sample species there to do molecular analysis and further try to sort out that mess.

[SilverShaded]

Originally Posted by NYCorchidman

I don't know what you are talking about, especially the latter part of your comment.

"..humans are placed were they are for reasons other than good science."

We are talking about science. After all, the classification system is based on science, is it not?

My last comment was to point out that yours was not a good example.
Let me say it one more time.
You were comparing genus vs order, and order is a bit higher in the biological classification.
Let me break it down for you just in case.
The lowest is species and then genus, family, order, class, and then a few more up.

Vanda is a genus and primate, which you used to compare, is an order as you say.
So I don't understand what you are talking about.

Lastly, I think my comments were all quite straightforward and easy. no struggling here.
Perhaps you are struggling to understand the point?
I don't like such shady way to communicate.

Or, if an expression "struggle to do something" is the same as "try to do something" as is used here, then I apologize for overreacting, although I think I've heard British people say the same way as Americans in this regard. I can confirm as I have friends in UK.

There are some scientists that think humans belong in the genus Pan and some scientists that think chimpanzees belong with Homo.

The fact is there is no universally understood meaning of the term species which is after all an entirely man made concept.

Much to do with with taxonomy is down to convention, hence no subspecies in Nepenthes.

A species is only recognized as such when someone bothers to publish a paper naming it, and can just as easily become unrecognized or moved into a different genus. It's all down to opinion at the end of the day.

Looking at the genes makes it a bit more scientific but it is still a very 'soft' science.

[PaphMadMan]

The problem is not with the science. Like any research the point is to look at new data and new ways to understand the subject. No paper is ever definitive taken by itself, and no answer is ever final. Placing Neofinetia in Vanda is an hypothesis that can lead to new questions and new conclusions. Problems arise because RHS chooses to immediately implement new science into a century old horticultural system, and sometimes changes again with the next new data. That could have waited until there was more data and a stronger consensus among scientists. Then we wouldn't have non-scientists who take such things personally whining about something they don't understand or are clearly just anti-science to begin with. Thanks to those who have attempted to bring more understanding to the subject here, and those who can cultivate an open mind and a little patience.

[NYCorchidman]

Originally Posted by SilverShaded

There are some scientists that think humans belong in the genus Pan and some scientists that think chimpanzees belong with Homo.

The fact is there is no universally understood meaning of the term species which is after all an entirely man made concept.

Much to do with with taxonomy is down to convention, hence no subspecies in Nepenthes.

A species is only recognized as such when someone bothers to publish a paper naming it, and can just as easily become unrecognized or moved into a different genus. It's all down to opinion at the end of the day.

Looking at the genes makes it a bit more scientific but it is still a very 'soft' science.

You are off topic and not making much sense.
Species does have a universally accepted definition, duh?
Plus, pretty much everything is man-made. Language itself. After all, we human beings are describing the world as we see and understand no matter how imperfect it may be.
I guess I'm done talking here.

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

Originally Posted by PaphMadMan

The problem is not with the science. Like any research the point is to look at new data and new ways to understand the subject. No paper is ever definitive taken by itself, and no answer is ever final. Placing Neofinetia in Vanda is an hypothesis that can lead to new questions and new conclusions. Problems arise because RHS chooses to immediately implement new science into a century old horticultural system, and sometimes changes again with the next new data. That could have waited until there was more data and a stronger consensus among scientists. Then we wouldn't have non-scientists who take such things personally whining about something they don't understand or are clearly just anti-science to begin with. Thanks to those who have attempted to bring more understanding to the subject here, and those who can cultivate an open mind and a little patience.

and thank you!
I think your comment will make a great closing for this thread.

[SilverShaded]

Originally Posted by NYCorchidman

You are off topic and not making much sense.
Species does have a universally accepted definition, duh?
Plus, pretty much everything is man-made. Language itself. After all, we human beings are describing the world as we see and understand no matter how imperfect it may be.
I guess I'm done talking here.[COLOR="Silver"]

Genetics is science, Evolution is science, chemical thermodynamics is science, taxonomy is cataloging.

Out of curiosity, what is the definition of a species?