Talk:Dendrobium

I think Onychium shouldn't redirect here--it's a genus of ferns. 70.210.206.11 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Onychium Blume is a synonym of Dendrobium, but Onychium Kaulf. is a current fern genus. Onychium certainly should be kept available for the latter. Redirect deleted. Hesperian 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A topic of....

Dendrobium candidum has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Dendrobium+candidum&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.64.222.245 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A few Issues

1. Not all Dendrobiums grow quickly in the summer and rest in the winter. There are over 1000 species of Dendrobiums, it is hard to generalise.

2. In the list of selected species, the "common names" are incorrectly derived from the botanical names.

3. What is the benefit of the list of selected species? I think this section should be removed or perhaps replaced with a SHORT list of selected species that have interesting characteristics, for example, Dendrobium cucumerimum, the cucumber orchid, with leaves that look like little cucumbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis cs chuah (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with (2) and (3). I propose to update the List of Dendrobium species and remove the red-linked species from the Selected species list. The common names should be treated as redirects (as many already are). Gderrin (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Dendrobium is a very large genus and several authors, notably David Jones and Mark Clements have proposed spitting it into smaller genera. Few (none?) of these proposals have been accepted by the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and as at January 2019 all are listed as synonyms of Dendrobium. Redirects for most were created in about 2008 but Dockrillia, Epigeneium, Winika and Vappodes remain. (Dendrobates D.L.Jones & M.A.Clem. is also the name of a frog genus.)

I propose to merge the contents of the articles on Dockrillia, Epigeneium, Winika and Vappodes with Dendrobium. Gderrin (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Orchids seem prone to splits that aren't later accepted; we should be err on the side of not splitting. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Drafts

Anyone know what's up with Draft:Dockrillia and Draft:Dendrobium? Should they be deleted/merged? --Nessie (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

They should be deleted. I created them in a clumsy attempt to do a round-robin move. Any help with doing this would be appreciated by me. Gderrin (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Gderrin, why have Vappodes and Dockrillia been moved to the draft spaces and overwritten with Dendrobium articles? Primefac (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Never mind, I found the talk page notices that they're all synonyms. You should have just merged and redirected, not done all of the pageswapping etc. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still trying to tease apart all of your moves. If you wouldn't mind telling me exactly what you moved where (and in what order), it will help me declutter this. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sections

I started the sections part for the taxonomy but have some issues with getting anything recent on splitting them up. It is not too easy to find. If someone has access to some phylogeny with the current status. Please edit it so it is correct. --Cs california (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Cs california: I think that at least part of the problem is that there is no agreement by the relevant authorities on how to divvy up the genus into sections. The Australian Plant Census lists at least some of the sections you've added as synonyms of the genus Dendrobium or others. (Plants of the World Online doesn't even try.) I applaud your bravery in trying, but I respectfully suggest that there are more important orchid issues to address.

Gderrin (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of change caused by the application of molecular phylogenetic methods doesn't appear to be slackening, so unless there's a recent account (ideally in the last five years or so), classification to sections is generally best avoided. There are usually few if any reliable secondary sources that go down to this level. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

I think the latest paper is this one here. The case to have sections is it makes it easier to group and id plants by specific characteristics. Despite having clear classification of sections they are still used in for the description of recently described species. It might be a good idea to go by what data we have on the groups and change it later when there is new evidence. --Cs california (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)