Galeandra is a popular and widely-grown genus of some 40 species ranging from Florida to southern Brazil. The largest group are from Brazil. Two new species recently have been described from Brazil and they are available from my friend Vitorino Castro. To represent the genus this is a picture of Galeandra devoniana.
The other genus, Grobya, in contrast is a small genus of five species endemic to the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest and is not widely cultivated outside Brazil. To represent the genus, above to the right, is a picture of Grobya amherstiae which is also available on the lists of my friend Vitorino Castro.
PREVIOUSLY, TAXONOMISTS HAVE PLACED BOTH GENERA, ALONG WITH CYRTOPODIUM IN OR NEAR THE CATASETINAE SO THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE SURPRISE AS HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES FROM KEW. Over the next few years we shall see if this change is accepted in the orchid community but it is certainly worth notice.
what is your opinion about that... in terms of ecology I am totally agree with this 3 genera included, in terms of flower anatomy, specially with Cyrtopodium and Grobya, was a half surprise... In terms of phylogenetics, even if the 3 genera are linked at subtribe level, at least Cycnoches branch and Catasetum Branch are monophyletic between both... but even if catasetinae had lost its traditional general, it seems that it is still possible to differentiate both groups (core genera and more new traditional ones) if alliance level is assumed at the union of both branches and not each one individually.
ReplyDeleteI find Kew's movement of the two species into the Catasetinae interesting but it doesnt really make that much difference to me. For well over 100 years the relationships have been known. The history of divisions such as tribes and subtribes are useful but the researchers have arranged and rearranged them since the beginning with Lindley. I am more interested in really useful information on relationship. Lets look at the fact that within the tribes the majority (but not all interestingly enough) of the genera and species can be hybridized. Taxonomic divisions for me should be useful in identifying a plant/flower that you have in hand. The divisions are all in fact articial. It all depends on where you draw the line despite all the jackknives and bootstraps the researchers come up with. The sudden finding that the Brazilian Laelias which had been sunk into Sophronitis should instead all be sunk into Cattleya shows that it depends on whose idea is popular. It should be remembered that all changes are proposed. The acceptance of the changes is what really validates them. Like statistics, perhaps phylogyny can prove whatever the researcher wishes. I consider the "core" group of five to be the ones of most interest to me. The sexual division and protandry are the feature that first interested me in the group. The fact that they hybridize with almost all of the tribe extends my interest to the others.
ReplyDelete