Talk:List of Phalaenopsis species

Intergeneric hybrids

I divided the hybrid taxa into the valid and obsolete section. All obsolete taxa contain at least one pair of now synonymous genera, according to plants of the wold online from the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. Should I just add one citation to Kew at the beginning of the obsolete section? Conan Wolff (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Conan Wolff: PoWO does not list "obsolete taxa", and I don't think the term should be used here. Of the ones I have looked up, each is listed as "an artificial hybrid". Gderrin (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: I wasn't saying they would list obsolete intergeneric hybrids, but I was referring to the synonymy of genera, which is information given by POWO. If one were to look up every genus of the listed hybrid names under obsolete taxa, then one would see, that at least two are now synonyms and thus the name for the hybrids involving synonymous genera is obsolete. For example × Roseara (Doritis × Kingiella × Phalaenopsis × Renanthera ) consists of the genus Phalaenopsis and Renanthera, but all other involved genera listed in the cross are no longer valid. It is synonymous with × Renanthopsis (Phalaenopsis × Renanthera )Conan Wolff (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Conan Wolff: What does "obsolete taxa" mean? You write all other involved genera listed in the cross are no longer valid but Plants of the World Online lists × Roseara (and all the others - as far as I have looked) as "this genus is an artificial hybrid" (not "obsolete"). "Synonym" in botany, does not mean "obsolete". I am not interested in artificial hybrids, but other readers are. For example, the Doritaenopsis article averages 50 page views per day, and a Google search has many references to it.

You also write I was referring to the synonymy of genera, which is information given by POWO, but I can't find what you are referring to. Your help please.

Unfortunately, PoWO does not list "artificial hybrids" except individually. Perhaps "artificial hybrids" is a better heading than "obsolete taxa", but one would need to cite each hybrid individually. I'd be happy to do that if you agree. Gderrin (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: I'm not contending the validity of the two latter examples you cite. × Laycockara (Arachnis × Phalaenopsis × Vandopsis) and × Arachnopsis (Arachnis × Phalaenopsis) are still sensible names for these artificial hybrids, as all involved genera refer to separate entities. This is why I put them into the vaild section. I am aware that all these hybrid genera are listed, but that only means they were historically published in literature and not that they necessarily make any sense in respect to taxonomic change since these publications.

It one examines the components of the specific exaple × Roseara, then it is clear that several components of the cross refer to the same entity. Doritis, Kingiella and Phalaenopsis all refer to the same taxonomic unit Phalaenopsis. Renanthera refers to the second genus of the cross and is not synonymous with the other genera listed for this cross. This artificial hybrid is actually composed of only two genera (and not four, which is how × Roseara is defined). It is identical to × Renanthopsis (Phalaenopsis × Renanthera ).

Both sections of intergeneric hybrids consist of artificial hybrids, so it would not make sense that just the section with obsolete taxa would be titled "artificial hybrids". If you are uncomfortable with the term "obsolete", then maybe something descriptive like "Hybrids involving synonymous genera" would be an alternative.Conan Wolff (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting somewhere. Both sections of intergeneric hybrids consist of artificial hybrids, so it would not make sense that just the section with obsolete taxa would be titled "artificial hybrids". Correct, I agree. But the hybrids in both lists are accepted at PoWO, so to call one list a list of "valid taxa" and the other as "obsolete taxa" or "Hybrids involving synonymous genera" is not supported by the references.

On the other hand, the hybrids in the first list are all listed by the RHS, with the parent genera listed as well. None of the hybrids in the second list is listed by the RHS, and the parent genera are not listed at PoWO. That suggests that a better alternative would be to describe the second list as "Other intergeneric hybrids accepted by Plant of the World Online" (but without including the parent genera).

Even if the all components of × Roseara were synonyms of Phalaenopsis, the contention that × Roseara is "obsolete" is only that - a contention, not supported by the references. Gderrin (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with my suggestion in par. 2, is that PoWO does not give the parent genus as Phalaenopsis. Gderrin (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: ... or "Hybrids involving synonymous genera" is not supported by the references. It is supported by POWO, that the genera, which are listed are in part synonymous, even if POWO itself does not list the genera. If one were to find the source of the listed genera for a cross in addition to the POWO reference, then it would be well supported to name the second section "Hybrids involving synonymous genera". I personally do not know who listed the involved genera of the crosses and what the source was for that. So would you agree, that if we find a source for the list of involved genera for the cross names, then it can be stated in confidence that they involve synonymous genera?Conan Wolff (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please cite a reference in PoWO: "× Asconopsis is a synonym of ..." or "× Asconopsis is obsolete". Gderrin (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Wesley Higgins of the University of Florida published something on this topic and he confirms the reduction of Phalaenopsis nothogenera after the reduction of involved genera to synonymy. or as a link to the short publication: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wesley-Higgins-3/publication/268746896_Phalaenopsis_Nothogenera/links/547550fd0cf29afed6126b73/Phalaenopsis-Nothogenera.pdf Conan Wolff (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see any mention of × Asconopsis in this paper, but × Asconopsis (and all the other hybrids except for × Phalanetia) is listed at PoWO. I would also suggest that none of the hybrid genera are taxa, because none has (have?) been formally described. Gderrin (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: × Asconopsis is not mentioned specifically, but it is clearly stated, that the nothogenera have been drastically reduced, as there have been extensive reductions of genera within Aeridinae. This clearly results in simplified hybrid nomenclature. Taxon is a correct term, as it simply refers to a unit of organisms. Hence, these nothogenera are taxa.Conan Wolff (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: I found a source listing components of these nothogenera. (direct link to .pdf: http://fradnai.free.fr/docs/doc16.pdf) This source in combination with POWO and the small publication of Wesley Higgins is reason enough to state with confidence, that the second section of nothogenera in the article involves synonymous genera, and should no longer be applied. Conan Wolff (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added references for each of the names in the list previously given here as "obsolete". If you think PoWO is mistaken, you should advise them at bi@kew.org or R.Govaerts@kew.org. There sometimes are mistakes. Gderrin (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Yes, thank you for doing so. The "disclaimer" ... although many of the parent genera are now synonyms of other genera, including Vanda, Renanthera and Phalaenopsis: is an adequate alternative to calling the second section obsolete. I'm not criticizing POWO by any means for listing these nothogenera, as they do appear in literature and POWO is also listing synonyms, which is a very handy feature. It's not an error to list them, they were used but are now simply outdated.

I did notice that not always all synonyms, which Christenson mentions in his Phalaenopsis a Monography can be found in the POWO database. In the pages on Phalaenopsis inscriptiosinensis Christenson writes, that Phalaenopsis sinensis is a synonym, but this name cannot be found in the POWO database. But that also makes sense in a way, as it is designated a nom. nud. in the book and thus Phalaenopsis sinensis was never published formally correct. Conan Wolff (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Newly described species Phalaenopsis yarlungzangboensis and Phalaenopsis medogensis

Phalaenopsis yarlungzangboensis and Phalaenopsis medogensis seem to be the same taxon and the two publications with identical authors use the same figures but the names of the species are different. I don't quite know what's going on here and why they have changed the names. Conan Wolff (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)