Neofinetia merged into Vanda!!!

[bispurious]

http://www.windsororchidsociety.ca/u...rchidaceae.pdf

[lambelkip]

Heard about this a couple months ago:
Neo' name change ???

[dendro king]

well thats down right stupid!! people like them and know them as neos, why change it, they should of called them vandas before releasing them as neos, i dont know about anyone else but im not changing my tags.

[Andre]

Not a fan of that.

[goodgollymissmolly]

Originally Posted by dendro king

well thats down right stupid!! people like them and know them as neos, why change it, they should of called them vandas before releasing them as neos, i dont know about anyone else but im not changing my tags.

When will y'all accept the fact that the botanical nomenclature system does not exist for you. It is the system of botanical science. Horticulture, in it's perennial ignorance, is just a hitchhiker.

Neofinetia falcata (the type species for the three plant genus) was originally described as Orchis falcata in 1754 and since has had 8 names of which Neofinetia is the most recently disposed.

Scientific knowledge will not cease because it annoys horticulturalists. If you don't like that just make up your own name. Try "little white tropical flower".

It doesn't make sense to get your panties wadded up over the 8th name of a plant.

[Leafmite]

I treat mine pretty much like vandas anyway and vanda is much easier to spell. Have they tested aerides, yet? I am also wondering if angraecums, aeranthes, and aerangis will end up back together--at least most of them.

[Vanda lover]

They change the names of birds every so often too. It's pretty annoying.

[smweaver]

Originally Posted by goodgollymissmolly

It is the system of botanical science.

I agree completely. In the acknowledgments section of the article the author states that the research is based on molecular systematics (which is the same evaluative system that evolutionary and molecular biologists use). It's not an arbitrary application (nor is this, as I've seen claimed in other posts, a case of Kew needing to either "get their act together" or "correct" their mistakes). If you truly respect science and the scientific method, then there is nothing about shifting a species from one genus to another (provided the move is based on solid evidence such as DNA analysis) that should really make anyone feel personally aggrieved. If, on the other hand, science is something that you treat as an à la carte menu, picking only those things that reinforce what you choose to believe while disregarding anything that contradicts a cherished vanity, then you're free to do so (in which case "stupid" changes suggested by a bunch of over-educated and dimwitted PhDs shouldn't disturb you in the least).

[Ryan.Walsh]

I would like to repost something I posted in another forum as I feel like this might help the discussion:

"I know I'm new here and this thread is old but I felt that I could shed some light on this issue. I'm currently on the last semester of my Ph.D. in Biology, specifically studying Cypripedium candidum ecology and evolution. I'm a little disheartened to see the apparent despise for taxonomists (I'm not one) and thought I might be able to offer some explanations that may make you all a little less irritated at the frequent name changes.

As you all know DNA analysis has revolutionized Biology and in particular systematics. What many of you may not know is that the field is anything but it stasis, it is constantly improving and getting cheaper. Where 10 years ago it may have cost thousands of dollar to sequence a relatively small number of species for a very small section of their DNA (700-800 basepairs) today a sequence like this will cost orders of magnitude less (at last pricing a single sample is $5-10). With this drastic decrease in sequence costs, researchers are able to sequence larger numbers of species and larger swaths of DNA in each of these species. When scientists talk about sequencing DNA, most of the time they aren't talking about sequencing the entire genome but simply sequencing small sections that are evolutionarily informative. Most often these sections are within the nuclear, mitochondrial, chloroplast or ribosomal genes. Each one of these sections evolve at different rates and are informative at different levels (i.e. between individuals, genus, species, sub family etc.). Due to the decreased cost and increased ability to sequence scientists are able to create much more accurate phylogenetic trees which inform us to the evolutionary history of the organism. By lumping things into a genus or species we are explicitly stating that at some point in the past, these species shared a common ancestor and have since evolved from that ancestor. I can assure you taxonomists are not just doing this to annoy you, each correction has an evolutionary reason.

In the case of the Neofinetia to Vanda issue, this change was announced in a peer reviewed publication this year in the Journal Phytotaxa by Dr. Lauren Gardiner in the article "New Combinations in the genus Vanda (Orchidaceae)". I have access to this journal and article so I can summarize it here. Based on new molecular evidence, species in the genera Ascocentrum, Ascocentropsis, Christensonia, Eparmatostigma, and Neofinetia are being reclassified to the genus Vanda. This reclassification as well as information on the analysis will be published in the forthcoming Genera orchidacearum. The Neofinetia treatment in particular was done based on molecular data, ease of hybridization and prior classification. Neofinetia falcata was at one point correctly classified as Vanda falcata in 1854.

Hopefully this all makes a little more sense and you all don't think us scientists are evil . If you have any more questions please feel free to ask and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

One of the biggest debates that occurs among taxonomists are where to draw the line between genera. Of course if you continue to go back through evolutionary time many genera will be linked to a common ancestor, this is what we like to think of as subfamilies. The real debate is where to draw this line. Most agree that a well done taxonomic tree using numerous genetic markers, and if possible morphologies of both extant and extinct species is the best approach to classifying organisms. The problem with morphology, particularly with orchids, is that extinct ancestors are typically lacking. Orchids do not form woody secondary tissue that is typically preserved the best in the fossil record. Pollen can be useful but unlike typical flowering plants, orchids produce pollen in organized structures that don't lend to spreading around. Compare the amount of pollen produced by a ragweed plant to a typical orchid for example. What taxonomists today try to do is use all of the evidence available and then make genera delineations based on both the genetic data and common sense data such as similarities in structure and ability to interbreed. As I mentioned earlier this is exactly the reasons listed by Kew for making Neofinetia part of Vanda.

Another thing to keep in mind is that typically the genetic evidence isn't making a brand new discovery but rather providing support to a previous hypothesis. This can be demonstrated in the case of Neofinetia falcata. If we look at the synonyms for N. falcata we can see that a whole lot of scientists have published papers claiming this plant was in one genus or the other. As a starting point, the plant we know as N. falcata was originally described by Thunberg in 1784 as Orchis falcata. By taxonomic convention Thunberg will always be named as the first to describe the species typically by placing his name in either () or preceded by ex. Following Thunberg's original description the following people have published peer reviewed articles on the taxonomy of the plant placing it in one genus or another (dates in parenthesis):
Limodorum falcatum (Thunb.) Thunberg (1794). <-Yes you read this right, he disagreed with himself ten years later
Angraecum falcatum (Thunb.) Lindley (1821).
Oeceoclades falcata (Thunb.) Lindley (1833).<-Same with Lindley
Vanda falcata (Thunb.) Beer (1854)
Aerides thunbergii Miquel (1866).
Angorchis falcata (Thunb.) Kuntze (1891a).
Angraecopsis falcata (Thunb.) Schlechter (1914).
Finetia falcata (Thunb.) Schlechter (1918).
Neofinetia falcata (Thunb.) Hu (1925).
Nipponorchis falcata (Thunb.) Masamune (1934).
Holcoglossum falcatum (Thunb.) Garay & H.R.Sweet (1972).

So as you can see this really isn't a case of the genetic data swooping in and throwing out the morphological data. It's actually a case of the genetic data supporting one scientists morphological analysis over another. In this instance Beer actually had it right over 150 years ago and it was Hu who incorrectly assigned it to a new genus. Kew, believe it or not, is actually putting things back to the way they used to be

[goodgollymissmolly]

Thank you, thank you, thank you