Where can I find the most recent orchid taxonomy?
 

I am working on a project and I want to make sure I am using the most current / accurate scientific names on the orchids involved. I know a few are out of date already (listed as Encyclia and they are now Prostechea).

Could anyone tell me where I could find a site where I could double check the scientific names?

Love you babe. You're an awesome orchid hunter :) - Sonia

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

Is what I use and most people on orchidboard. But taxonomy is always an item of discussion.

It should be noted that the Kew folks are very Eurocentric in their viewpoint...Europeans like to think the American Listera orchids are in the genus Neottia, while American botanists tend to favor Listera...of course, the American Orchid Society kowtows to Kew for classification, so they are the odd one in the bunch.

---Prem

United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Area
Germplasm Resources Information Network

USDA also lists Neottia as the currently accepted name of of the genus. So perhaps you are out of date rather than America centric. I'm not into native wild flowers so it isn't a big issue with me. I just thought the slam at the rest of the world was unnecessary. No wonder everybody likes us so much.

Wasn't even close to taking offence. But this is why I added Taxonomy is an item of discussion to my post. Most people get into a fit when you try to explain that Laelia purpurata is actually a Cattleya.

Kew has a nice website when most if not all orchids can be found. I haven't found another one that is as user friendly and accurate.

Ps I actually like most US citizens that I've met.

I don't think Prem was slamming Kew and the Europeans, just pointing out that they are perceived by some to have a certain predisposition that colors their taxonomy. I've known a number of Australians to express this as well regarding generic and species status of Australian native plants, so it's not a uniquely American viewpoint. Even now that molecular evidence is beginning to replace morphology in establishing degrees of relationship between species, the way samples are selected and studies are designed strongly influences the data obtained, meaning there is plenty of room to reasonably question conclusions from those data.

The botanists I know tend to accept and use Kew's classification because it creates a commonly understood language of discourse, not necessarily because they think Kew is right about everything. Science doesn't rest on authority but on evidence, and Kew's taxonomy is only as good as the publicly-available evidence backing it up.

That said... Justin, Kew's list is probably your best bet for what you're seeking. :)

--Nat

Thank you all for your input, this is all very helpful.

Prem, nice changes to your site by the way, I've been enjoying it quite a bit lately.

Okay, making good progress on the project, but I ran into a road block. I searched on Kew for Maxillaria crassifolia but found it accepted as Heterotaxis sessilis.

What is everyones opinion on this? I want to be sure to use the most accurate names.

Same with Maxillaria parviflora showing as Camaridium vestitum.