Is there a type species list?

[pikkumyy]

Hi all,
tonight i was doing some research on my new Brassia maculata, and i found out that it is infact the type species for brassia .

and that got me thinking, is there a list that anyone knows of, that lists all of the type species so that i dont have to search the genus one by one?

i've now gotten the thought stuck in my head that it would be cool to have the type species of all my different genera...... that is if my climate allows it

another i want to get is Paph insigne and Den moniliforme. but i've got to do some more research


many thanks

[1joyceh]

hmmm...Michael got a new Brassia maculata, and is not posting a picture (of the whole plant)??? LOL...got you Michael....

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by 1joyceh

hmmm...Michael got a new Brassia maculata, and is not posting a picture (of the whole plant)??? LOL...got you Michael....

hahahahah it only counts if there is a photo of the flower , and im surprised at myself, ive been buying heaps of plants lately and haven't sent any emails or made any threads. i need to check my temp.

and about the maculata, i actually bought it for my societies christmas party last night as presents, that and a den hercoglossum. mine were the largest plants and the only ones in flower im such a suck-up

[1joyceh]

oh no...all plants, all the time....Jenny and I are feeling neglected....no new pics????
what is the world coming to???
It sounds like you scored at the party!!! happy that you had a great time

[pikkumyy]

it was brilliant, the plants were presents from mum and i, and we got a scented candle, a box of biscuits and a bag of chocolate coated fruits and nuts. but the important part is that we had a great time, oh, and i can gloat about the fat that we were seated at the presidents table (he and his wife are the only ones that mum knows fairly well.)

[1joyceh]

WOW!! I did not know I knew a VIP?? hehehehe...
I am so glad you had such a wonderful time, and brought home such wonderful gifts

[pikkumyy]

correction, an Excecutive Senior VIP

[1joyceh]

OMG!!! LOL...my bad, sorry Mr. Executive Senior VIP

[pikkumyy]

anyways, back to my original question.

anyone know

[1joyceh]

sorry for hijacking the thread Michael

[Andrew]

The IOSPE gives the type for each genus.

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by Andrew

The IOSPE gives the type for each genus.

thanks Andrew, thats actually how i found out, and how i started looking for others.

but im a lazy teenager and i was just wondering is anyone knew of a list that had compiled them all together.

[rcb]

ok, lazy teenager, you might have to do the work on this one for yourself.

I'm not aware of any list, but if you find one, let me know.

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by rcb

ok, lazy teenager, you might have to do the work on this one for yourself.

I'm not aware of any list, but if you find one, let me know.

hahahaha, i think i'll just have to write it down, and then make a copy of it on the forum for future reference.

[FLBob]

Have you found www.orchidspecies.com ?

Jay Phal has nearly 14000 species listed in 819 genera.

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by FLBob

Have you found www.orchidspecies.com ?

Jay Phal has nearly 14000 species listed in 819 genera.

yeh i have, thanks. it's a great website, thats what people refer to if they say IOSPE i believe.

i'm just gobsmacked at how many orchid species there are each time i use that website. but i was a bit dissapointed, he hasn't yet added bulbophyllum nocturnum though it was only discovered and made famous no more then a month or two ago

[koshki]

Could you please elaborate...what is a "type species list"?

[jsehorn]

Not to further hijack the thread, but I've got a few new plants on the way, Joyce, and I'll be sure to post pictures just for you when they get here!

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by koshki

Could you please elaborate...what is a "type species list"?

here is a meaning for type species that i got off the internet:
the species that best exemplifies the essential characteristics of the genus to which it belongs

and im trying to find a list of all of them because i thought it might be cool to eventually have all of the type species of the genera that i grow .


for example some of the types species that i know of are:
Brassia maculata
Paphiopedilum insigne
Dendrobium moniliforme
Euanthe sanderiana

[koshki]

Interesting...who decides which species is "best"?

[pikkumyy]

Originally Posted by koshki

Interesting...who decides which species is "best"?

wouldnt have a clue, it would be interesting to find out.


scissors-paper-rock perhaps

[mayres]

Here is another species list for brassia - Brassia

[PaphMadMan]

Actually, that definition of type species is a bit off...

The type species is simply the first species described for that genus. It doesn't exemplify the characteristics of the genus, it defines the essential characteristics of the genus, but these may not be what we think of as the typically visible characteristics of the genus.

No other plant was named Laelia before Laelia speciosa, so that is the type species for genus Laelia. It may not be typical of the genus at all, it just happens to be the first one named, but all plants later added to the genus Laelia must share a few key characteristics with the type species and must be more closely related to the type species than they are to plants of any other genus.

The concept of the type species, along with the rule of precedence (that the first name properly given must be used) and the difficulty in figuring out the actual relationships, taken all together account for the sometimes disturbing name changes that we complain about so much.

I'm not aware of a better source than IOSPE for looking up type species. I seriously doubt there is a simpler or more comprehensive source for that information, but it has a couple limitations. In many cases it does not agree with the current classifications used by Kew Gardens and RHS, and it is a huge and never ending task to try to keep any such list up to date. However, for any genus that it does list it gives the type species, and the type species for a genus can never change.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by pikkumyy

i was just wondering is anyone knew of a list that had compiled them all together.

I think IOSPE is about as close as you're going to find to someone compiling that type of info. I only wish they also had type locations for each species.

Originally Posted by pikkumyy

i'm just gobsmacked at how many orchid species there are each time i use that website. but i was a bit dissapointed, he hasn't yet added bulbophyllum nocturnum though it was only discovered and made famous no more then a month or two ago

Neither has Kew.

[orchids4me]

Originally Posted by pikkumyy

here is a meaning for type species that i got off the internet:
the species that best exemplifies the essential characteristics of the genus to which it belongs

and im trying to find a list of all of them because i thought it might be cool to eventually have all of the type species of the genera that i grow .


for example some of the types species that i know of are:
Brassia maculata
Paphiopedilum insigne
Dendrobium moniliforme
Euanthe sanderiana

Do you mean genera Michael ? Like Den can have many types but fall under the genea Dendrobium some species some are hybrids I think type would make more sense between a species or a hybrid. But I could be wrong. Or maybe if with in a species how Den is broken down into 3 groups on the Aos culture sheet for Dendrobium.... Ok I can see how this gets confusing now lol kevin !! Enlighten us

[orchids4me]

Originally Posted by PaphMadMan

Actually, that definition of type species is a bit off...

The type species is simply the first species described for that genus. It doesn't exemplify the characteristics of the genus, it defines the essential characteristics of the genus, but these may not be what we think of as the typically visible characteristics of the genus.

No other plant was named Laelia before Laelia speciosa, so that is the type species for genus Laelia. It may not be typical of the genus at all, it just happens to be the first one named, but all plants later added to the genus Laelia must share a few key characteristics with the type species and must be more closely related to the type species than they are to plants of any other genus.

The concept of the type species, along with the rule of precedence (that the first name properly given must be used) and the difficulty in figuring out the actual relationships, taken all together account for the sometimes disturbing name changes that we complain about so much.

I'm not aware of a better source than IOSPE for looking up type species. I seriously doubt there is a simpler or more comprehensive source for that information, but it has a couple limitations. In many cases it does not agree with the current classifications used by Kew Gardens and RHS, and it is a huge and never ending task to try to keep any such list up to date. However, for any genus that it does list it gives the type species, and the type species for a genus can never change.

When I clicked on quote for Michaels post I didn't see this yet. . Thank you !
This makes sense

[JLu]

Actually there is a printed list of sorts....the book Illustrated Dictionary of Orchid Genera by Peggy Aldrich and Wesley Higgins,et.al. produced under the auspices of Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and published by Cornell University Press in 2008 gives the type species for each genus as well as a short description of each genus and other technical facts concerning the various synonyms and publications/authors involved historically.

Paphmadman is corrrect in his definitions above except that Laelia speciosa is not the currently accepted name for the type species (it is a synonym). The type is Laelia grandiflora (Lexarza) Lindley.

It should be mentioned that this is a "Lectotype" not a "Holotype". The former is a type plant chosen after the genus is described and not necessarily by the author or even in close proximity chronologically to the original description. The latter (holotype) is the exact species on which the author based his generic description, chosen by him at the time of the original description. Common sense says the holotype is somewhat more genuine than a lectotype, but usually that's splitting hairs pretty finely. A holotype is not a requirement when describing a new genus, thus lectotypes come into being.

This is a really good example of why the genus Cattleya was reorganized to include Brazilian Laelia much to the chagrin of many hobbyists. Laelia grandiflora (syn Laelia speciosa) is a Central American plant which is shown by DNA analysis not to be closely related to the Brazilian Laelias. Thus we had two groups of plants in the same genus (Mexican Laelias and Brazilian Laelias). They did not belong together. Remember that most Brazilian Laelias were originally described as Cattleyas and later moved to Laelia based on the different number of pollina which most taxonomists always insisted was not a defining characteristic but simply a chronological evolution difference.

There certainly are other ways that the Brazilian Laelias could have been treated and many hobbyists would have preferred another way. The genus Hoffmannseggella had already been described as a replacement to hold the Brazilian Laelias and would have worked to most hobbyists satisfaction. Unfortunately that would have required that the genus Cattleya be broken up into pieces based on DNA evidence uncovered in this entire investigation. It was eventually decided that lumping all this into Cattleya was a simpler change than creating several new genera to split Cattleya. A lot of hobbyists don't like this idea, but they would not have liked the alternative either. The previous arrangement was scientifically incorrect so something had to be done.

If you want a printed list of types this book is worthwhile.

[terra_australis]

Hmmm... great question Michael. I can only suggest you contact Jay and ask if he could possibly compile a list to include on his site. Orchidspecies.com is a work in progress and I'm sure he is interested in making it as useful to it's audience as possible.

[pikkumyy]

WOW! thanks for all the comments everyone i really appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PaphMadMan

Actually, that definition of type species is a bit off...

The type species is simply the first species described for that genus. It doesn't exemplify the characteristics of the genus, it defines the essential characteristics of the genus, but these may not be what we think of as the typically visible characteristics of the genus.

No other plant was named Laelia before Laelia speciosa, so that is the type species for genus Laelia. It may not be typical of the genus at all, it just happens to be the first one named, but all plants later added to the genus Laelia must share a few key characteristics with the type species and must be more closely related to the type species than they are to plants of any other genus.

The concept of the type species, along with the rule of precedence (that the first name properly given must be used) and the difficulty in figuring out the actual relationships, taken all together account for the sometimes disturbing name changes that we complain about so much.

I'm not aware of a better source than IOSPE for looking up type species. I seriously doubt there is a simpler or more comprehensive source for that information, but it has a couple limitations. In many cases it does not agree with the current classifications used by Kew Gardens and RHS, and it is a huge and never ending task to try to keep any such list up to date. However, for any genus that it does list it gives the type species, and the type species for a genus can never change.

thanks so much for this PaphMadMan, i really appreciate it, i wasn't very sure and i trust an orchid grower more then i trust an online dictionary when it comes to all things orchidaceae

Originally Posted by orchids4me

When I clicked on quote for Michaels post I didn't see this yet. . Thank you !
This makes sense

hehe neither had i, and your comment notification came in the email to me instead so maybe he was in the middle of writing it when you commented

Originally Posted by JLu

Actually there is a printed list of sorts....the book Illustrated Dictionary of Orchid Genera by Peggy Aldrich and Wesley Higgins,et.al. produced under the auspices of Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and published by Cornell University Press in 2008 gives the type species for each genus as well as a short description of each genus and other technical facts concerning the various synonyms and publications/authors involved historically.

Paphmadman is corrrect in his definitions above except that Laelia speciosa is not the currently accepted name for the type species (it is a synonym). The type is Laelia grandiflora (Lexarza) Lindley.

It should be mentioned that this is a "Lectotype" not a "Holotype". The former is a type plant chosen after the genus is described and not necessarily by the author or even in close proximity chronologically to the original description. The latter (holotype) is the exact species on which the author based his generic description, chosen by him at the time of the original description. Common sense says the holotype is somewhat more genuine than a lectotype, but usually that's splitting hairs pretty finely. A holotype is not a requirement when describing a new genus, thus lectotypes come into being.

This is a really good example of why the genus Cattleya was reorganized to include Brazilian Laelia much to the chagrin of many hobbyists. Laelia grandiflora (syn Laelia speciosa) is a Central American plant which is shown by DNA analysis not to be closely related to the Brazilian Laelias. Thus we had two groups of plants in the same genus (Mexican Laelias and Brazilian Laelias). They did not belong together. Remember that most Brazilian Laelias were originally described as Cattleyas and later moved to Laelia based on the different number of pollina which most taxonomists always insisted was not a defining characteristic but simply a chronological evolution difference.

There certainly are other ways that the Brazilian Laelias could have been treated and many hobbyists would have preferred another way. The genus Hoffmannseggella had already been described as a replacement to hold the Brazilian Laelias and would have worked to most hobbyists satisfaction. Unfortunately that would have required that the genus Cattleya be broken up into pieces based on DNA evidence uncovered in this entire investigation. It was eventually decided that lumping all this into Cattleya was a simpler change than creating several new genera to split Cattleya. A lot of hobbyists don't like this idea, but they would not have liked the alternative either. The previous arrangement was scientifically incorrect so something had to be done.

If you want a printed list of types this book is worthwhile.

thanks you SO much for all that info JLu you sure do have a head on your shoulders. and thanks for the name of the book, i'll try and get it wish me luck

Originally Posted by terra_australis

Hmmm... great question Michael. I can only suggest you contact Jay and ask if he could possibly compile a list to include on his site. Orchidspecies.com is a work in progress and I'm sure he is interested in making it as useful to it's audience as possible.

thanks Dan. so how would i contact Jay? everyone seems to know him, and rightly so i guess seeing as how he has a FANTASTIC website.

[terra_australis]

Pretty sure his email address is on the web site...