Neo' name change ???

[lepetitmartien]

On my own, I don't envy taxonomists as it's a terrible, a difficult, and an unthanked job. And they do it the best they can with limited budgets and means, else it would go way faster.

DelawareJim is right on the nothogenus issue. The fact so many genus are interfecund means a lot and right now genetics is making arbitrary taxonomic walls fall, because some taxonomists did their job very well, but found differences which were maybe not as important as they believed in the morphology of orchids to divide them in a rational way.

I'm sure we're not finished with headaches and changing labels (it was already like this 30 years ago when I first grow orchids…)

[Magnus A]

Originally Posted by Bud

RHS or KEWS better get their act together. They must device an efficient way of classifying orchids and correctly naming them....and once it is named they have to stick to that name....

- Kew is botany and RHS is horticulture.
- The later compete with plants for fame and own winning the former try to understand how everything is related.

The artificial hybrids breeded for fame is of no interest for a botanist! And the name change just mess up the life of horticulture people, for everyone else it is just knowledge...

No, let the science develope and enlighten us!

[mollycart1]

I will be calling them "Fuukiran (富貴蘭)".

[Bud]

People romanticize these charlattans at KEWS or RHS as scientists....
Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Architects and Lawyers have to undergo examinations and licensed by the Bar or the Board before they are allowed to work....
these RHS or KEWS people is highly dubious that they even finished college or seen a lab....they are merely appointed by the Royals....they have to have connections to be in power much less be rich ... because there is no salary involved at all....yet they get to name orchids without being properly credentialed....
The best Botanists and scientists of the land will go to work for the high paying lab or do research where there is grants and money involved...so I doubt if these RHS people are credible real scientists by the mistakes they made through the decades....even a mere student of Botany will make sure they submit a paper with no mistakes or else they will be scrutinized by their peers and proffessors....so why are the RHS and KEWS people blatantly make these mistakes??!!! its because no one is holding them responsible for what they are doing....

*and it is very clear to me that they do not know what they are doing

[isurus79]

Wow, check out how many names Neo. falcata has had!!
Vanda falcata (Thunb.) Beer (1854: 317).
Basionym: Orchis falcata Thunberg (1784: 811).
Homotypic synonyms:
Limodorum falcatum (Thunb.) Thunberg (1794: 326).
Angraecum falcatum (Thunb.) Lindley (1821: t15).
Oeceoclades falcata (Thunb.) Lindley (1833: 237).
Aerides thunbergii Miquel (1866: 205).
Angorchis falcata (Thunb.) Kuntze (1891a: 651).
Angraecopsis falcata (Thunb.) Schlechter (1914: 601).
Finetia falcata (Thunb.) Schlechter (1918: 140).
Neofinetia falcata (Thunb.) Hu (1925: 107).
Nipponorchis falcata (Thunb.) Masamune (1934: 592).
Holcoglossum falcatum (Thunb.) Garay & H.R.Sweet (1972: 182).
Heterotypic synonyms:
Oeceoclades lindleyi von Regel (1866: 70).
Distribution:—China, Japan, Korea, Nansei-Shoto (Ryukyu) Islands.
Notes:—Vanda falcata was proposed in 1854 by Beer in Prakt. Stud. Orchid. before being placed in
Neofinetia in 1925

The paper doesn't say, but are these name changes based on new genetic studies?

[dope.fatboy]

Bud: charlatan is a pretty strong allegation. Looking through the personnel list on KEW's website doesn't give any indication that they are staffed with unqualified people.

Personally, I double check all my plant names off theplantlist.org which is a website run in coordination with multiple botanical institutions including several in the states that are absolutely unaffiliated with the royal family.

[lambelkip]

Bud, scientific research does not always involve lab work. sometimes it involves interpreting other peoples results. if you read the article (link given earlier in this thread), you'll find that it was based on 7 different genetic studies, all of which are in agreement with each other. the paper also lists as references 70 other books & scientific papers.

Steve, only the recent move back to Vanda was based on a genetic study. the rest were based entirely on appearance, with disagreement on which characteristics were more significant.

fatboy, Kew is accepted as the authority for the Orchidaceae. theplantlist.org lists Kew's World Checklist of Selected Plant Families as the source for information for all of it's Orchidaceae entries, but is not as up-to-date as Kew's database. the plant list is a great resource, but I recommend checking the source to find the latest classifications.

[dope.fatboy]

I like theplantlist.org because it shows who the name is accepted by, but it's good to know that they simply follow the lead of KEW.

[Bud]

Im sorry but I am not speaking 'ex cathedra' on anything....its just an assumption and personal opinion or merely ranting perhaps....I know for a fact that Charles Darwin was a Botanist for KEW and RHS and most of his expeditions were funded by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert....
With all these multiple mistakes the KEW scientists have made...I am wondering what ever happened to the best Botanists of England?

[Roy]

Kew List of Monocots only list the plant name changes as recommended by way of the Advisory committee who evaluate information from Botanists & Taxonomists. These researchers are not necessarily under the employ of the RHS/Kew Gardens. They are from a group of recognised specialists accepted by the RHS/Kew gardens.
It will be forever an on going trend to recommend name changes. New methods of testing will continually contradict previous finding or agree.
We, as orchid growers, accept the name changes or leave the names we have as is, they are synonyms & not incorrect.
The biggest issue is for the RHS Registrar working out what to do & where the need arises, changing all the references. We used to has Ascocenda, will it be now Vanda. Makes it difficult as some Ascda's have the same name as Vanda's.
It would be of great use to all for the Registrar to not rename crosses in registration & leave well alone or indicate in brackets the new grex ex'

Ascda.(V.) Yip sum Wah x ########
We cannot blame the RHS or Kew, all we can do is chose to use the new or retain the old. Judging Panels will have to decide what they want also.