Cirrhopetalum = Bulbophylum?

I like to consider those with "daisy-like" umbels to be the cirro's, while the rest are bulbo's.

AFAIK they are all Bulbos. According to Peter O'Byrne Cirropetalum was never validly published way back when, so the name is invalid. Where this puts Siegerist's book and her further splits I have no idea. Best to check with IPNI for those splits. Christenson says the IPNI system for naming is more up to date than others. Or he likes it better.

That said, if you are looking to enter something for AOS judging I think it may be best to go with the Kew name becasue the AOS decided to accept Kew's taxonomy because - I guess - they need someone to step up and be the authority. Tap tap no erasees.

This is where (in my humble opinion) OW is indispensable. Synonyms are all there and easy to get to. (I have no affiliation with OW other than a few crappy photos in their data base. I pay for it just like everyone else)

I found Peter O'Byrne's comment to me when I asked this question on the OGD some years ago: "K Barrett asked:

"I understand Cirropetalums have been moved back to Bulbophyllum. Is that so? And who was the taxonomic authority who moved them and how accepted was the change? The reason I ask is because I have Sigreist's book, ....."

Kathy,

I hope you're not hoping to trigger-off a flame-session, because questions like this can lead to vitriolic arguments.

The answer to your Q is that no taxonomic authority moved Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum. The transfer isn't necessary.

You asked the wrong question. In my opinion, you would have done better to question the taxonomic authority of those who tried to separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum in the first place. And therein lies a long and convoluted story. I'll try to shorten it.

Both Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalum are very old names; Bulbophyllum was established by Thouars in 1822, Cirrhopetalum by Lindley in 1824. Initially, it was easy to keep the two genera separate, but as more and more species were added, it became clear that separation could not be maintained, and the two genera were merged. At this point, Cirrhopetalum (being the younger name) was reduced either to a synonym of Bulbophyllum, or (more usually) to a section inside Bulbophyllum, or (sometimes) to a subgenus under Bulbophyllum.

There have been repeated attempts to re-establish Cirrhopetalum as a genus. They have all failed in the long run. In some highly authoritative cases (like Rudolph Schlechter), the author(s) initially treated Cirrhopetalum as a genus, but as they became more familiar with the range of species that need to be taken into consideration, reluctantly abandoned the concept of a "genus" Cirrhopetalum and switched to using Bulbophyllum instead. For a long, long time the consensus amongst knowledgable orchidologists has been that you cannot separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum on the basis of morphological characters.

In 1994, Garay, Siegerist et al attempted (yet another) division of the Bulbophyllinae, based upon purely morphological characters. Amongst other proposals, they resurrected Cirrhopetalum as a genus, and created several minor genera such as Mastigion. I was not impressed by their arguments (don't ask ... my reasons are very lengthy) and I decided that it was more accurate to stick to the old-fashioned concept of Bulbophyllum. 13 years later on, I'm certain I made the correct decision. There is a clear consensus amongst recent authors ... how many use Mastigion, Rhytionanthos, etc ? And how many use Bulbophyllum ?

So my answer to your question is that no taxonomic authority has moved Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum, because they were never satisfactorially separated in the first place.

Peter O'Byrne"

I'll let you tell O'Byrne that K

Actually, no, I won't walk away from this. Ray, you'd be wrong, and since you spend a huge amount of time on line and are considered somewhat of an authority in chat rooms world wide you to be more knowledgeable, your bar is set higher than that.

Read Peter's post again. He states that while Cirro raises its head time and again as authors become more familiar with the wide range of species involved the distinctions blur, so they go back to Bulbo. So if *authors* - who know more than you or I do about these species - keep returning to Bulbophyllum why shouldn't you?

It would be one thing if a newbie said umbel/non-umbel, but you aren't a newbie.

K Barrett

Lighten-up, Kath. I said I prefer to, not that I do.

I am very well aware that I am not qualified to discuss taxonomy any more than is the guy who just installed our new kitchen appliances. In fact, I know SO little about taxonomy that it appears to me that the flower-head structure would make a perfectly good separator in the bulbo/cirro arena.

Unlike some people who frequent forums, newsgroups, and mailing lists, if there's a subject I don't know anything about, I don't respond, unless I'm making a joke )or at least attempting to).

Ray, I didn't want umbel/non-umbel to be the end of the conversation. People who passively read this news group listen to you. They may not read the whole post about how confusing bulbophyllums are even to taxonomists. A myth would persist. Neither of us want that.

K Barrett

I guess I'll ask the impertinant question now... has anyone done gene sequencing on prominant plants with the Cirr genus somtimes applied, prominant plants with the Bulbophyllum genus applied, and the fringe cases? I have this funny feeling that as gene sequencing improves a lot of the existing taxonomy will be tossed on its ear.

I hope Rob Halgren (of Rob's Rules) chimes in here becasue he's employed in this field. I know there are efforts to elucidate the genomes of orchids and rank them in a new systemic order according to their DNA. This is what the debate in Cattleyas has been about for the past 7-8 years, much of which is open to debate. If you look at the DNA analysis of Laelia purpurata (for example) it is closer to Sophronitis (like Soph coccinea) than to the Mexican laelias (like L anceps). Now, to look at L purpurata and Soph coccinea one would never think they were closely related at all, but genetically they are. This is where the debate starts. Some say the science is moving too fast. The cladistic analyses haven't been verified by others in the field (a major tenet of the Scientific Method) and is stacked in favor of these splits. However these analyses were performed by people with huge amounts for credibility, so who's to say they are wrong? Cassio Van Den Berg at the Miami WOC proposed lumping many species back into 'Cattleya', for to continually split and split and split was getting ridiculous - many monotypic genera were created, interrelationships became unwieldy. This proposal has yet to be accepted.

There is an effort to create a genetic barcode for every species

So the quick answer to your question is yes, the genetic interrelationships of every species on the planet are being elucidated and progress is happening at light speed. Knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds since

In medicine there's a push to determine personal genomes (that is to say your own personal DNA code). The target price for this is $1000.00 It presently costs much, much more than that, but it'll happen sooner than you think. Then the debate about whether health insurance should have access to that data will begin. Insurers denying coverage based on DNA has lready been made illegal, but you know how business works, there's always wiggle room. *G*

Then there's J Craig Ventner's effort at creating life from stock genetic material. He's already put together one chromosome from stock which he hopes to insert into the nucleus of a monochromosomal bacteria (its chromosome will have been removed) and see if his kickstarts and the bacteria continues to live. (cue: Frankenstein "Its Alive!" sequence). Not to mention that the monochromosomal bacteria he selected for use is a pathogen from the human urinary tract. This is an offshoot from research in making genetic machines.

You gotta keep up, Chris!

K Barrett

Absolutely agreed!

To paraphrase a famous remark about Popeye's vital food--

"I say it's bulbophyllum, and I say to hell with it."

I have a number of bulbo's. They bloom well for me, especially -Bulb. makoyanum- which is still putting out flower spikes after starting to bloom in June.

My sister scored a huge, floriferous Bulbo. hybrid for $15 at a flea market in Florida. I was too slow to notice it, having been distracted by some weird tillandsias.

J. Del Col