Neofinetia vs. Vanda falcata

[K-Sci]

I'd like to get some opinions on the following.

"The earliest documented references to the Japanese Wind Orchid, Fuuran (風蘭) in Romanized Japanese, are from the latter half of the 1600s. About 100 years later, the collecting and cultivating of Fuuran was reaching its peak of popularity with Japanese of wealth and rank called fuuki (富貴). Combined with the Romanized Japanese word for "orchid", ran (蘭), the Furran varieties prized and collected by Japanese fuuki were called “fuukiran” (富貴蘭), ”Rich and Valuable Orchid”.

The first taxonomic naming of the species Vanda falcata was in 1784 when Carl Peter Thunberg presented the new Asian species to European taxonomists naming it Orchis falcata. It was subsequently moved from genus to genus several times until 1925 when H. H. Hu created the new genus Neofinetia (nee-oh-fi-NET-ee-ah) with falcata as the only member species. It remained the sole species in the genus for 71 years, until 1996 when Neofinetia richardsiana was added as a second Neofinetia species. Eight years later, in 2004, a larger plant similar to richardsiana was given the species name Neofinetia xichangensis bringing the number of Neofinetia species to three.

The next change to the Neofientia genus camei in 2012. All three Neofinetia species were reclassified by placing them in the Vanda genus. For those having difficulty transitioning to the name Vanda falcata your are at liberty to continue using the old name. The name Neofinetia falcata is still a synonym for Vanda falcata. The Botanical Codes of nomenclature, unlike those for Zoology, state dictate that the old name of a species, though technically inaccurate, is still a name for the species.

This means for those who struggle to change what they call their “Neofinetia,” there is nothing wrong with relaxing, enjoying life, and continuing to call them Neofinetia.”

[PaphMadMan]

Your post is a reasonable and concise statement of facts, K-Sci, but a few additional things to consider...

All the names along the way presumably reflected the authors best understanding of the data at the time. But as taxonomy moved from a descriptive endeavor often focused on easily observed traits that could be incorporate in dichotomous keys toward less easily observed but more concrete evidence of actual relationships among species it became harder for a non-specialist to understand the evidence and reasoning. The publication of a new name is a scientific hypothesis supported by evidence. New evidence will always come along, and changes will happen. Older names are acceptable (though technically should always include the author and publication year reference), and there is no reason a hobbyist should rush to change tags or abandon names in common usage, as long as the meaning is still clear for the purpose.

But here's a complication for you. If a new species related to Neo/Vanda falcata was discovered and described now it would probably be published as a Vanda, and it would not ever be appropriate to call it Neofinetia. Even without that, at some point hanging on to the old creates confusion, and eventually begins to resemble flat earth type science denial. At some point if you're not just using the old name for convenience but actually consider the new names illegitimate you are questioning the evidence and the science, and the basis for the new interpretation of the evidence is the assumption of biological evolution of related forms. Try not to cross that line.

Neos will always be a special case to some extent because of the centuries of cultural history behind fuuran/fuukiran and the modern association with the name Neofinetia. It will always be culturally, and therefore horticulturally, a distinct group. People will understand what you mean by Neofinetia for a long time, but if you insisted on Orchis falcata it would be equally legitimate but you'd get a lot of blank stares.

Another complication. Species names are covered by International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants, but hybrid names fall under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Unlike scientific precedent of older names still being valid(ish), the registration authority (RHS) gets to decide what is official. Old names will retain some useful meaning for quite a while, but a new man-made hybrid between Neo species could only ever be officially considered a Vanda for hybrid registration. A new Vanda x Neo hybrid could only legitimately be called a Vanda, not Vandofinetia. And the longer the old and new names exist side by side in use the greater the potential for confusion.

[K-Sci]

Originally Posted by PaphMadMan

Your post is a reasonable and concise statement of facts, K-Sci, but a few additional things to consider...

Older names are acceptable (though technically should always include the author and publication year reference),

I would add "if writing for an audience that has this technical expectation or convention".

there is no reason a hobbyist should rush to change tags or abandon names in common usage, as long as the meaning is still clear for the purpose.

Exactly. Getting the message across is all the hobbyist needs to consider. If speaking at a University, clarification of the Vanda name may be needed.

But here's a complication for you. If a new species related to Neo/Vanda falcata was discovered and described now it would probably be published as a Vanda, and it would not ever be appropriate to call it Neofinetia.

Not much of a complication. Nobody would want to call the new species Neofinetia. Also, if, say, the Amami type were split off as a separate species, the name history would go with it.

Even without that, at some point hanging on to the old creates confusion, and eventually begins to resemble flat earth type science denial.

It makes no sense to actively resist the change, but for now, at least, one need not feel obligated to change, either.

At some point if you're not just using the old name for convenience but actually consider the new names illegitimate you are questioning the evidence and the science,

I'm a scientist by profession. Questioning the evidence and questioning science is essential to the successful practice of science. Using "science denier" as a pejorative has become a means to influence public opinion used by people who misrepresent the science seeking to use cultural views of science for political gain.

With the move of Neofinetia to the Vanda genus my advice is that people should go with the flow. The point of my post was that people need not feel guilty or worry about using the old name or the new.

The renaming causes confusion, but it is necessary. There are people selling and discussing Cattleya tigrina under two old names, guttata and leopoldii.

...
It will always be culturally, and therefore horticulturally, a distinct group.

Very true. I think Neos would probably survive if grown like strap leafed Vandas, but they wouldn't do terribly well. I'm still growing my Neos outdoors. A strap-leafed Vanda would probably collapse from disease within a couple weeks of 45°C nights.

People will understand what you mean by Neofinetia for a long time, but if you insisted on Orchis falcata it would be equally legitimate but you'd get a lot of blank stares.

Another complication. Species names are covered by International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants, but hybrid names fall under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. Unlike scientific precedent of older names still being valid(ish), the registration authority (RHS) gets to decide what is official.

There is that problem. I assume there are Neo hybrids where a Vanda hybrid name already exists. The species enhancing the flower color in my Neo hybrids are not known.

Old names will retain some useful meaning for quite a while, but a new man-made hybrid between Neo species could only ever be officially considered a Vanda for hybrid registration. A new Vanda x Neo hybrid could only legitimately be called a Vanda, not Vandofinetia. And the longer the old and new names exist side by side in use the greater the potential for confusion.

Thank you for writing! You brought up several points I wanted to talk about - just what I was hoping for. I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
K-Sci