If I missed an answer to this please forgive me - LOTS of info to take in here!

I understand the WHY of changing names, the HOW is complicated but interesting. But I'm curious: How come ALL of the plants of an old name aren't changed at the same time? Case in point is Epidendrum. I understand any plant growing on another was originally called that. I see lots of orchids still called that though changes have been going on for what seems forever. Does it really take more than 50 years to get around to all of them?

Bob, a plant that grows on another but doesn't "feed" off it is actually an epiphyte not an epidendrum. Most orchids are epiphytes.

The reason, as I understand it, for many name changes is that the boffins (a derogatory British term for egghead scientists) can now do DNA profiling on our orchids and they have discovered that a lot of orchids that looked similar so were called the same name are actually different. They're sorting some into new genus and even into new species.

My opinion on it, as I've stated pretty clearly before, is that in some cases they're just changing names of plants because they can, not because they should. A lot of confusion has ensued amongst orchid collectors when a plant that has been known as one thing for 100 years is suddenly changed to a completely different category with a complicated, unpronounceable name that often includes somebody's surname or first name in the nomenclature. The excuse for changing the name is usually because they analyzed it at the cellular level and discovered its cells matched some other type of orchid altogether, even though they look not one bit alike.

As I said, only my opinion . . .

I share that opinion.

Yes Elaine I know orchids don't feed off another plant. It is my understanding Carl Linnaeus came up with that name in the 1760s to describe plants growing on other plants. That wasn't my question - sorry if is sounded like I place orchids in the same category with mistletoe. Understanding they are epiphytes is in my opinion paramount to my understanding their watering, air circulation, and light needs.

Let me try again. Here's an example: Many Epidendrum are now classified as Stanhopea. So why aren't they all just called Stanhopea and and the name Epidendrum dropped?
Yes, I understand as DNA is used more and more that plants can be more readily related to a different lineage. And yes, I understand much of naming is "political"; people who are "connected" have the ear of those with the official stamp. It just SEEMS like if "old" names were all changed rather than done piece meal there would be a little less confusion?

Hi Bob; taking your example of Epidendrum and Stanhopea, the Stanhopea genus was named in the 19th Century and so pre-dates the discovery and use of genetic testing. I would think that as more methods of identifying relationships between the species were implemented, many of the Epidendrum species were found to be more closely related to those already existing in the Stanhopea genus and were moved, whilst the remainder were clearly not closely related and so should not be moved.

There are several different ways plants can be recategorised:
- A genus is found to contain more than one group of plants and some of these are split out into a new genus
- Plants allocated to one genus (i.e. Epidendrum) are found to be more closely related to those of another genus (i.e. Stanhopea) than the type species for their original genus and so are reallocated
- Separate genera are found to be closely related and so are merged (i.e. half a dozen different genera have been merged into Dendrobium; likewise for Vanda and Cattleya)

Hopefully that helps clarify the situation.

Excellent simplification, Joshua! The question now is what happens next? Will those that are merged because they're close be separated yet again? Will they all just evolve? Will these guys find productive jobs?

All this reminds me of that ad on TV about the guy who thought he was Italian and discovered, via DNA testing, that is is mostly Eastern European. What now???

It does occur to me that if it is discovered that a specific plant is more closely aligned with another genus it may indicate that the cultural requirements are different also. It could be a good thing.

Thanks everyone. I woke up in the middle of the night and realized the answer to my question. Joshua, thanks, I see that although a group of plants is originally called "A" and some get called "B" does not mean some "A's" might be closer to "C's" than "B's".

Hope this is not off subject, but what is the difference between Epidendroideae and Higher Epidendroideae in taxonomy?

There is such a thing as higher Epidendroideae? I have no idea.
Haven't looked at Orchid nomenclature lately but I would think the next step "up the ladder" would be Orchidaceae.
I am curious, do you have a source for this classification?

I've seen the term used on Wikipedia.

The taxonomic classification ranks, as I understand it, from family down:

Family: Orchidaceae
Subfamily: Apostasioideae, Cypripedioideae, Epidendroideae, Orchidoideae or Vanilloideae
Tribe: (lots)
Subtribe: (lots)
Genus: 800+
Species: 22000+
Subspecies/variety: ?

This might help: http://www.woctrust.org/GO_class2.pdf

sorry Ursula, I had intended to include the source (senility is almost in full force today):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Scrolling through the page it lists Epidendroideae then Higher Epidendroideae; many in my little collection fall in the the Higher Epidendroideae group and others are in Epidendroideae; I have others in other SubFamilies too, but was only curious about the distinction. Certainly not a show stopper.

Just a note of caution with Wikipedia - it isn't necessarily up to date, as I found a few contradictions between tribe and subtribe contents whilst researching the subfamily, tribe and subtribe groups. You can see my notes and what I've populated so far in my Orchid Genera document in my signature.

Australis said:Just a note of caution with Wikipedia - it isn't necessarily up to date, as I found a few contradictions between tribe and subtribe contents whilst researching the subfamily, tribe and subtribe groups. You can see my notes and what I've populaetd so far in my Orchid Genera document in my signature.

+

Thanks, Australis. I take most things on the internet with a grain of salt (some with a salt block). I must admit I did not look through other pages, though using "Higher Epidendroideae" in a Google search pops up quite a few pages that list it.

I must also admit I'm not deep enough into taxonomy to understand the importance of relationships. Orchids being "promiscuous" (allowing breeding between species in different tribes) fascinates me; it's certainly not something that can be done in the animal kingdom.

I don't think they typically cross between tribes (although I have found a few), but they certainly cross between subtribes a lot (as I've been updating my spreadsheet I've been trying to work out where the hybrid genera fit - there are quite a few that are in the same subfamily and tribe, but have parents from different subtribes).

Ah, I see. They re-named the former Vandoideae to Higher Epidendroideae.

Mystery solved - Thanks!

I've been reading some on various intergeneric but I'm getting a bit confused about Laeliocattleya. Leoliocattleyas are a cross of Lailia and Cattleya correct? Some of the Lailias are now classified as Cattleyas and some are not? So how do you figure out if its a now is considered a Laeliocattleya or its just a Cattleya and the grower's site isn't using the new "nomenclature" yet? As example something I've been looking at one called Lc. secret love 'Angel'. I would guess its not a register cross (I have the feeling it's neither fish nor fowl actually).

Lisa, we're all confused at times about the names on orchid tags vs. what they may have been re-named.

Here's a link to the American Orchid Society's page on Laelias that might help clarify a bit for you. Lots more info available on their site. You can click on "Orchids A-Z" and read about Laeliocattleyas and other mixed up orchids, too.

http://www.aos.org/orchids/orc...

In the meanwhile - Lisa, yes, your Lc Secret Love is registered. It has been renamed to Cattlianthe Secret Love.
http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticu...
Since the cultivar name, in this case 'Angel' is not part of a registered cross, but more or less chosen for awards purposes, you do not type it in when you check the RHS for a name. I simply typed in only the Secret Love and looked for the obvious choice. This way I avoid an outdated name of a Genus.