Genuses in Oncidiinae

[Jakob]

Since Oncidiinae represent one of my favourite groups of orchids and unfortunaltely i cant grow most of the interesting ones, I' ve been doing some "research" lately and I have stibled upon a page about them:
ONCIDIINAE (ORCHIDACEAE)

on the page's quite clearly explaind which genuses and why are (should be) they valid.
however, i haven't seen any acceptance of those proposals anywhere.
I do understand that some traditional genuses are far more useful for horticulture and won't, can't, be replaced by some weird, for a grower unnecessary changes,
but, I do like to know, what's currently accepted as a (scientifically) correct name - i don't mind renamings, in fact i rather like to follow these changes as it changes our perception of how orchids evolved (well sometimes it gives more about how we are too ).
So, i'd like to found out, what are for now the correct names for the genuses and species in this group? I'm familliar with IOSPE, but there's not many reasons why the geni are like they are...
Thanks!

[Subrosa]

The plural of genus is "genera"

[murph7]

Based on this review paper (that used the findings from Neubig et al., 2012, among others):

An updated classification of Orchidaceae - Chase - 2015 - Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society - Wiley Online Library

"Oncidiinae have also changed a great deal since the classification of Chase et al. (2003), but only three new genera have been added: Grandiphyllum, Psychopsiella and Vitekorchis. The change has involved the condensation of many genera, from 90 in Chase et al. (2003) to 65 here."

Subtribe Oncidiinae has the following genera
(although there might be another more recent update I am not aware of)

"Relative to Chase et al. (2003); *newly described or recognized genera;number of species in parentheses from Govaerts (2014)."

Aspasia Salisb. (7), Brassia R.Br. (64), Caluera Dodson & Determann (3), Capanemia Barb.Rodr. (9), Caucaea Schltr. (9), Centroglossa Barb.Rodr. (5), Chytroglossa Rchb.f. (3), Cischweinfia Dressler & N.H.Williams (11), Comparettia Poepp. & Endl. (78), Cuitlauzina La Llave & Lex. (7), Cypholoron Dodson & Dressler (2), Cyrtochiloides N.H.Williams & M.W.Chase (3), Cyrtochilum Kunth (137), Dunstervillea Garay (1), Eloyella P.Ortiz (10), Erycina Lindl. (7), Fernandezia Ruiz & Pav. (51), Gomesa R.Br. (119), Grandiphyllum* Docha Neto (7), Hintonella Ames (1), Hofmeisterella Rchb.f. (2), Ionopsis Kunth (6), Leochilus Knowles & Westc. (12), Lockhartia Hook. (28), Macradenia R.Br. (11), Macroclinium Barb.Rodr. (42), Miltonia Lindl. (12), Miltoniopsis God.-Leb. (5), Notylia Lindl. (56), Notyliopsis P.Ortiz (2), Oliveriana Rchb.f. (6), Oncidium Sw. (311), Ornithocephalus Hook. (55), Otoglossum (Schltr.) Garay & Dunst. (13), Phymatidium Lindl. (10), Platyrhiza Barb.Rodr. (1), Plectrophora H.Focke (10), Polyotidium Garay (1), Psychopsiella* Lückel & Braem (1), Psychopsis Raf. (4), Pterostemma Kraenzl. (3), Quekettia Lindl. (4), Rauhiella Pabst & Braga (3), Rhynchostele Rchb.f. (17), Rodriguezia Ruiz & Pav. (48), Rossioglossum (Schltr.) Garay & G.C.Kenn. (9), Sanderella Kuntze (2), Saundersia Rchb.f. (2), Schunkea Senghas (1), Seegeriella Senghas (2), Solenidium Lindl. (3), Suarezia Dodson (1), Sutrina Lindl. (2), Systeloglossum Schltr. (5), Telipogon Kunth (205), Thysanoglossa Porto & Brade (3), Tolumnia Raf. (27), Trichocentrum Poepp. & Endl. (70), Trichoceros Kunth (10), Trichopilia Lindl. (44), Trizeuxis Lindl. (1), Vitekorchis* Romowicz & Szlach. (4), Warmingia Rchb.f. (4), Zelenkoa M.W.Chase & N.H.Williams (1), Zygostates Lindl. (22).

[estación seca]

These reclassifications are based on analysis of DNA from the plants. As more and more DNA is analyzed it is likely to change yet again. It is unlikely taxonomists will ever agree 100% on how to divide any group of plants into genera and species, but it is interesting to see what current research suggests.

In any case, the name doesn't make any difference with appreciating the plant.

[Bud]

Since you are interested in finding out the latest correct names of orchid plants: your best bet is the RHS. "The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) was founded in 1804 in London, England, as the Horticultural Society of London, and gained its present name in a Royal Charter granted in 1861. The Royal Horticultural Society is the world’s leading gardening charity. The RHS quotes its charitable purpose as "The encouragement and improvement of the science, art and practice of horticulture in all its branches". The current Director General is Sue Biggs.
The charity promotes horticulture through flower shows such as the RHS Chelsea Flower Show, Hampton Court Palace Flower Show, RHS Tatton Park Flower Show and RHS Cardiff Flower Show. It also supports training for professional and amateur gardeners.
Since the establishment of International Registration Authorities for plants in 1955 the RHS has acted as Registrar for certain groups of cultivated plants. It is now Registrar for nine categories – conifers, clematis, daffodils, dahlias, delphiniums, dianthus, lilies, orchids and rhododendrons. It publishes The International Orchid Register, the central listing of orchid hybrids. It published Encyclopedia of Conifers in 2012." (2016, EPUB) Other growers name their orchids without being registered in the RHS is unacceptable, and is still considered by most professional orchid growers as a NOID (No Identification). But what’s in a name?

One can be a member by online application paying annual fees, and therefore access their databanks and is entitled to a monthly magazine/newsletter.

[Jakob]

Frstly, i'm sorry for the grammatical mistake, I couldn't remember the right plural and i thought it sounded wrong because I am now immersed in a third language... turns out it sounded wrong because it was wrong

These reclassifications are based on analysis of DNA from the plants. As more and more DNA is analyzed it is likely to change yet again. It is unlikely taxonomists will ever agree 100% on how to divide any group of plants into genera and species, but it is interesting to see what current research suggests.

In any case, the name doesn't make any difference with appreciating the plant.

I'm well aware the names will change as more research rolls in and our understanding evolves. But for me, the taxonomy is a nice addition to the plant. Plants are indeed beautiful and interesting, but for me is reading about them, their names and renamings interesting too (especially because i can not enjoy them all live).

Since you are interested in finding out the latest correct names of orchid plants: your best bet is the RHS.

Thnks! checking it out.

and murph7, thanks for the article !

[PaphMadMan]

Anyone can access the Kew Checklist of Selected Plant Families (run by Kew Royal Botanical Garden) or The Plant List (run by a partnership of Kew, Missouri Botanical Gardens and others). Both databases let you check for the currently accepted name of any orchid (and many other) species, and give information about other published names over time. This is at best a considered professional opinion for the time being, as there is no final authority and science is always open to reinterpretation. They don't always agree, reflecting that situation. RHS is a predominant force in orchid horticulture, and they generally follow Kew interpretations of accepted names.

World Checklist of Selected Plant Families: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Home — The Plant List

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

Is it me, or did the genus Baptistonia get absorbed into another genus?

[Jakob]

yes, it seems it is now in Gomesa, as per Kew Checklist.

[Alanear]

I use the Kew checklist frequently to validate names of plants exhibited at the North of England Orchid Society monthly judged shows. It gives comprehensive lists of synonyms as well as the currently accepted name of each species, so I am able to report both when appropriate; no one gets upset!