OrchidSafari ARCHIVES*

Present were 25:

Sparky-steve
Banny
Gail
Richard WPB
KB Barrett
Barbara
Bob (RedfernNH)
Ted
gastrochis
Fleur
Chuck
RunnerRick
Susan
Marla
Paula
RitaG2 (and Ellen in the Hudson Valley)
Clare
Rayma
Darryl (Sydney, Australia)
John
Evlyn
Harold
Phals
Youfouria
Mickey

KB Barrett
Hi All, Bob's going to continue his comments about Paphs tonight. Also any questions we may have about Paph taxonomy we'll send to Guido Braeme and he'll answer them and have them for the next newsletter. Topic tonight is Paph taxonomy.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
We had a talk at the judging forum today about multifloral Paphs, and hybrids. It leads to a lot of questions relevant to taxonomy problems.

prankster d (Susan in Oregon)
Has the dust begun to settle on multifl. Paph taxonomy, or is it still in flux?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
I suggested to the speaker that an interesting follow up talk would be to take some 'pairs' of species that breed differently, but where the resulting hybrids would register with the same name.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
'Pairs of species' ?? Could you give an example Bob?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
The classic would be glanduliferum (aka praestans) and wilhelminae. Hybrids made with either register under glanduliferum, but are quite different. Take for instance the two quite different Susan Booths that result.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
Yes, those two seem very different. I have a wilhelminae in bud right now. Maybe it will eventually get species rank.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Tackling taxonomy first, most taxonomist dealing with Paphs have now accepted wilhelminae as a valid species, including Cribb in his upcoming monograph. However, I recently wrote Peter Hunt, pointing out Cribbs position, and assuming that since he's on the nomenclature committee, that the registrar would now accept wilhelminae, but nope.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
Oh, so now the real problem will be changing labels ;-)

send Orchids (Marla in Boise)
Bob, what are your thoughts on phrag. pearcei and amazonica. They look the same to me. Are they really different species?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Some other 'pairs' would be glaucophyllum and moquettianum, and philippinense and variety roebelinii

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
Sounds like the biggest problem is getting the AOS and RHS to accept that these things are distinct varieties. Don't see villosum and its var. boxalii as distinct don't they so there is precedence.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
RHS stopped accepting boxallii for registration some time ago, so they do evolve, but slowly.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
It was probably chamberlainianum (victoria-regina) or its var. kalinae

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
I meant to say that these organizations recognize villosum and its variety boxalii as distinct.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Not for registration purposes at this point

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
They stopped accepting boxallii?? why?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Because its only considered a variety, and varieties register under the nominate species. There are a lot of problems that develop with registration because of evolving taxonomic concepts.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
And the RHS is slow to change sometimes, it seems. Of course wholesale change causes tremendous confusion with the old names.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
I can see why taxonomists may want to be conservative, but when different varieties have big influences on their hybrids it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (I'm just ranting now)

send Orchids (Marla in Boise)
Bob, about the new paphs from Viet Nam....helenae and hieppi...What group(s) do they belong in?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
A classic in my mind is that they accept for registration both chamberlainianum and victoria-regina.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Evolving taxonomic concepts? Like gene counting? Could you expand a little on that comment?

send Orchids (Marla in Boise)
Are they new species or varieties of existing species?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Now, all of the major Paph taxonomists accept that this is just one species, but just don't agree with which name applies. And the 'hybrid' between the two has even been registered.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
helenae would fall in section Paphiopedilum, hieppi is parvisepalum if it holds up as a valid species.

send Orchids (Marla in Boise)
Would helenae be a new var. burbigerum or a new species all together?

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
hieppi?? don't know this one. Is it similar to malipoense

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
I can only speculate on helenae based on photos, I think it may hold up as a good species in its own right.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Do you think the wave is toward accepting victoria-regina? From looking at photos I can see the rationale behind making chamberlainianum, etcetera, varieties.

send Orchids (Marla in Boise)
How about the pearcei - amazonica question. Still thinking about that one?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
As far as taxonomy evolving, it's simply not an *exact* science like math, and different folks have different concepts, as well as new technologies and methods adding more clues.

Sorry, I didn't see the Phrag question. I think that that whole area has tremendous problems, and I wouldn't venture in there myself. The only really good treatment for Phrags in recent times was Lucille McCooks PhD thesis, and that hasn't been published (I have a xerox, thankfully).

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Bob, I understand that taxonomy has really been changed with the use of DNA. Can you explain how they do this research?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
On victoria-regina vs chamberlainianum, its not a question of one being a variety, I think it's pretty well accepted that it's a single species, just which name takes precedence.

The 'description' for the species goes back to Fred Sanders ads in the Gardener's Chronicle, and the issue is over whether he was misleading people in offering two different species.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, I think the use of victoria-regina has gained the most support over chamberlainianum, which I would like to see conserved because of long use.

Fleur (Tasmania)
Bob, which article came first?

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
I thought there was a move to change everyone to victoria reginea var chamberlaininum, var moquettanum, var. glaucophyllum etc. That's a fait accompli?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
No actually that was Mark Woods concept several years ago, but most now accept victoria-mariae, glaucophyllum, glaucophyllum var moquettianum, primulinum, primulinum var purpurascens, victoria-reginae, liemianum, and victoria-regina var. kalinae as the valid divisions

Unless someone is trying to return to this concept recently that I haven't heard of
[No, I'm just reading an old book as a reference!...KB]

Fleur (Tasmania)
The rules would say, the name should follow the first article published. At least that's what I understand.

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Bob, that's a mouthful.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Taxonomy does seem to run in waves, alternating from lumping to splitting and back.

harold6820 (Farmers Branch, TX)
Not sure I could even type words that big.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Bob - isn't that one reason the RHS is rather conservative in accepting registrations?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
There was a question regarding DNA analysis, my first comment is that it won't be the be all and end all for taxonomy, at least for the foreseeable future, its just another tool.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Thanks, Bob. BTW I think I found an error in a book. In Keith Bennett's book called Tropical Lady Slipper Orchids he has Paph. micranthum in Cymatopetalum. Isn't it a Brachypetalum?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Since rates of mutation can be predicted with mathematical models, DNA (chloroplast) from different plants is analyzed for relatedness and then a time line for how far apart they are can be established.

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Thanks, Bob, That was my question. Do you know how they extract it?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
No I don't Rayma, my only experience with those techniques is with avian species, and then a long time ago.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
Here’s one for both Bob and Dr. Braem, but any one else is welcome to give their two cents worth! I am interested in the proper use of the terms ‘variety, form and cultivar’. Am I correct in understanding that ‘variety’ is used to differentiate geographic subpopulations of a species that differ from one another but not so greatly as to deserve full species designation? What about P. lawrencianum var. hyeanum, might using the term ‘form’ be more appropriate for an occasional mutation that shows up in natural populations, or, if all current hyeanums came from just one original parent, maybe ‘cultivar’ would be a more accurate way to describe it. What about P. stonei var. platytaenium and var. candidum, shouldn’t they be considered ‘forms’? Whenever I see ‘var.’ used I want to be able to find a geographic spot on a map where that plant can be found growing in the wild (or where it used to be found before being paved over). Am I reading too much into the use of #145;variety’? Finally, what the heck is P. stonei var. latifolium? (Bob, you already addressed this Wednesday.) Everyone seems to have a different opinion on this one!

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Bob, That's a pretty far cry from the methods used when I was a botany student. Back then the rage was chemotaxonomy. Is that still used also?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Chuck, my only two cents on this is that variety and forma are terms that are only acceptable when properly published under the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Any of us can apply cultivar names, but there are rules governing there validity also.

I think chemotaxonomy is still used, but is not as 'excitng' as the new tools

Kathy, catching up, micranthum is subgenus brachypetalum, section parvisepalum.

I'm getting the impression that taxonomy = boring to most :)

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
I like taxonomy, it along with plant geography was my favorite, but I don't know enough of the species names to talk much about them.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Taxonomy isn't boring but for many laymen is very difficult to comprehend. Many simply want a name to be chosen then keep it that way. I know that true scientists could never do that however!!

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Bob, do you know where and when the Paphs first evolved?

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Bob, not so much of boring, I'm have a hard time to remember the original names of a few, now all the new ones. I think I'm have a mental block over it.

Fleur (Tasmania)
No Bob, it's interesting but very complicated.

ChuckMyr (Chuck in Austin, Minnesota)
Bob, any thoughts about the relationship between paphs (cyps in general) and other orchids?? A few have suggested they perhaps shouldn't even be considered true orchids.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
And I can't figure out why they keep splitting and splitting the paphs when they leave Dendrobiums alone!

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Also, do you know which other orchids they are most closely related to?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
There's another concept to keep in mind. That is what *scientifically* consists enough evolution to make a species isn't necessarily the same dividing point that is important to us horticulturally.

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Kath, they changed some of the Den. too.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
That is an interesting thought! I will have to think about that some.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
As far as the relationships between the various slipper, any reading I've done on that is so fuzzy at this point I wouldn't be competent to comment. Atwood wrote a pretty complete treatment of this about ten years ago and it was published in Selbyana, they still sell the issue I think.

Fleur (Tasmania)
Yes a lot of the Australian Dendrobiums are now renamed.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Fleur - what was the reasoning behind that?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Paphs get more attention because of their fairly prestigious position and visability, IMO.

Fleur (Tasmania)
I'm not sure John, but a lot of them now come under Dockrillia. Darryl would be a better person to ask.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Dendrobiums to Dockrillia?

Fleur (Tasmania)
Yes Dendrobiums to Dockrillia a whole heap of them.

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Who is really accepting this dockrillia genus? [See DOCKRILLIA UPDATE below.]

Oceania Darryl
Dockrillia is becoming the accepted name for the teret-leaved species dendrobiums. Originally a Brieger name but resurrected last year for some new species from New Guinea.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Does anyone want to ask any general questions of Bob while we have him?

JCY8S (John in Arcadia, CA)
Thanks, Darryl. That is interesting. I will keep an eye out in the literature for it.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Ask quickly folks, spent 8 hours in the car and 7 hours in a seminar today!

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Or shall we call it quits on paphs for tonight and open it up to general chat?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Sounds okay too, I stick around for a few minutes, and then say goodnight.

Fleur (Tasmania)
Bob, are you also answering culture questions?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Sure, Fleur.

Fleur (Tasmania)
I have a P. armeniacum in a hanging basket, it came that way. It's in large bark chips. can I repot it in the basket only in sphagnum moss to keep it moist.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Fleur, I have heard of armeniacum being grown that way, I don't think it would work for us though, armeniacum in our experience likes to get wet but then dry out fairly quickly, and we'd have trouble with moss.

Banny - England
Bob, I have three paphs - one's a delenatii, the other two green leaf (not mottled) hybrids. I've had them all more than a year and all blooming when I bought them. They've all got good new growths on. How do I get them to reflower? Bribe them?

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
Banny, grow them well and be patient. Have they fully matured new growths? If they are not large plants they may also just take a year off, especially if adapting to new conditions.

Banny - England
I moved house six months ago, so maybe they're still adjusting. I'm just soooo impatient.

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Yes, Bob do you keep some of your Paph. set in water?

Oceania Darryl
John, a review of the genus, with the new species was published in the first issue of Lasianthera, journal of the Port Moresby Botanic Gardens in PNG, Some other article in The Orchadian, published by the Australasian Native Orchid Society.

RWCandor (Bob in Upstate NY)
No, not at all.

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Bob, Do you know where most of the Paphs come from? What part of the world?

Oceania Darryl
Anybody interested in New Guinea Bulbophyllums?

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Darryl, is that your love? Bulbos?

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Darryl, I tried to grow Den. cuthbertsonii 3 times. Finally gave up.

Oceania Darryl
Kathy, special interests are species from Australia, New Guinea and the Pacific Islands, especially New Caledonia, Fiji, Solomons and Vanuatu.

Barbara, not the easiest species, likes that hard to organise environment, bright light and cool temperatures. Root zone temperature seems to be critical.

KB Barrett (Kathy in N. Calif.)
Sounds like my dream vacation, Darryl!!

Oceania Darryl
Have made it to New Guinea with the other islands on my list!

rayma123 (Rayma from Central Alberta)
Darryl, have you been able to visit these wonderful places and see the orchids in the wild?

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Darryl, yes, my GH just get too hot in the summer time, even tho I sat it right in front of the cooler, which was on all day long.

Oceania Darryl
D.cuthbertsonii will tolerate up to 45 deg.C in my shadehouse in the Sydney summer but the leaves get black spots. try putting the whole pot in another pot full of sphagnum to cool the roots.

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Darryl, we have a society member, he has a whole GH full of Den. cuthb. which he collected himself years ago, he's doing real well with it. Some of the two tone color one are just soooo pretty.

Oceania Darryl
Another good PNG sp. for range of colours and easy culture is D.lawesii

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Darryl, I only saw that in peraly white with yellow lip. What other color they have?

Oceania Darryl
I've seen lawesii in red,purple, yellow, orange, white, pink, pink&white, red&purple and orange&yellow.

bmtorchids (Barbara In N. Calif.)
Darryl, do the flowers stay as long as the Den cuth.?

Oceania Darryl
No Barbara, only about 3-4 months wheras cuthb. can go 9-10 months

Oceania Darryl
Bye all, gotta go now and watch the cricket, Australia to beat South Africa!

Fleur (Tasmania)
Darryl, I'll put a $1.00 on that *grin*

From: "Colin Hamilton"
Subject: Update of Genus Dockrillia
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:01:33 +1000

"The Orchid Registrar of the Royal Horticultural Society in the United Kingdom has rejected the genus Dockrillia for registration purposes."

A Checklist of the Genus Dockrillia
Mark A. Clements and David L. Jones
Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research,
Australian National Herbarium,
P.O.Box 1600, Canberra A.C.T. 2601

In preparing this list it became apparent there was a conflict of views between Brieger (1981) and Rauschert (1983) concerning the appropriate form of the names that have been used for Dockrillia. Brieger when creating Dockrillia used the feminine rather than the masculine Latin gender in forming the name despite the fact that the name commemorates Alick Dockrill, a male. Although Brieger treated the generic name as neuter in the formation of the specific epithets, Dockrillia must be considered feminine.

The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Art. 62.1) states "A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition, irrespective of classical usage or the author's original useage". The following is a list of the taxa currently known in the genus Dockrillia:

Dockrillia Brieger in Schltr., Die Orchideen 3(1): 745 (1981)

Type species: Dendrobium linguiformis Sw. (fide Brieger)

Dockrillia bowmanii (Benth.) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia brevicauda (D.L. Jones et M.A. Clem.) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia calamiformis (Loddiges) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia casuarinae (Schltr.) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia caudiculata M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia chordiformis (Kraenzl.) Rauschert
Dockrillia convoluta M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia crispata (G. Forst.) Rauschert
Dockrillia cucumerina (MacLeay ex Lindley) Brieger
Dockrillia delicata M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia desmotrichoides (J.J. Smith) Brieger
Dockrillia dolichophylla (D.L. Jones et M.A. Clem.) M.A. Clem. et D.L.Jones
Dockrillia fairfaxii (F. Muell. et Fitzg.) Rauschert
Dockrillia flagellum (Schltr.) Rauschert
Dockrillia x foederata (St. Cloud) Rauschert
Dockrillia fuliginosa M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia x grimesii (C. White et Summerh.) Rauschert
Dockrillia hepatica M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia linguiformis (Sw.) Brieger
Dockrillia mortii (F. Muell.) Rauschert
Dockrillia nothofageti M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia nugentii (F.M. Bailey) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia pugioniformis (A. Cunn.) Rauschert
Dockrillia racemosa (Nicholls) Rauschert
Dockrillia rigida (R. Br.) Rauschert
Dockrillia schoenina (Lindley) M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones
Dockrillia striolata (Reichb.f.) Rauschert
ockrillia teretifolia (R. Br.) Brieger
Dockrillia vagans (Schltr.) Rauschert
Dockrillia wassellii (S.T. Blake) Brieger

Acknowledgements:

We wish to thank Alex George, Laurie Adams and Ingeborg Pauluzzi for comments on the Latinisation of specific epithets in Dockrillia.

References:

Brieger, F.G. (1981). Subtribus Dendrobiinae. Schltr., Die Orchideen (ed. 3) 1(11-12): 636-752.

Rauschert, S. (1983). Beitrag zur Nomenklatur der Orchidaceae. Feddes Repert. 94 (7-8): 433-471.

Brieger first coined the name Dockrillia back in 1981, which he used to loosely accommodate the so-called "terete-leaved" Dendrobium species. The name, which commemorates Alick William Dockrill, has been resurrected in the journal Lasianthera, but this time it is gaining acceptance from native orchid enthusiasts and botanists.

Many people will be horrified to learn that the huge genus Dendrobium will be dissected into a number of smaller genera. This is largely because we are familiar with them as "dendrobes". You must admit that it is hard to believe that Dendrobium toressae and Dendrobium bigibbum are in the same genus, either in or out of flower.

There is just so much diversity within Dendrobium that this was bound to happen. Don't be surprised to see a similar thing happen to other genera such as Bulbophyllum and Eria.

Why is it then, that we are happy to accept so many monotypic genera within the Sarcanthinae? Why couldn't say Papillilabium beckleri and Schistostylus purpuratus be in the same genus? Or why couldn't the guidelines for Plectorrhiza, be expanded to accommodate them? I know I go along with the recent transfer of Sarcochilus moorei to Rhinerrhiza, as it is certainly closer to that genus. Anyhow, back to Dockrillia.

I certainly support this change, but it will cause a problem or two. Particularly from a horticultural viewpoint.

I still have a problem with Dockrillia dolichophylla (formerly Dendrobium teretifolium var. aureum) and Dockrillia fairfaxii (formerly Dendrobium teretifolium var. fairfaxii) being different species. The main difference seems to be colour, as structurally they are very similar. I always thought that colour was never a major criteria when naming new species.

At least I was pleased to see that Dendrobium toressae and Dendrobium lichenastrum are no longer included in Dockrillia. A full checklist of the members of genus Dockrillia appears opposite this note.

For example, a number of growers in Sydney either have plants of (or hybrids of) a plant which was loosely known as Dendrobium teretifolium 'Black Pam'. Despite the name, this taxon is not even close to the true Dendrobium teretifolium. Yet, this was the name that was promoted and numerous hybrids have been made with this taxon.

Two major problems come out of this. Firstly, a number of hybrids have been registered with the Royal Horticultural Society in London quoting "Dendrobium teretifolium" as the parent - I believe this has been irresponsible and misleading. The second problem is that these hybrids invariably pop-up at shows and orchid society meetings as Australian hybrids. How can this be the case when it is well known that our infamous 'Black Pam' came from Papua New Guinea. They should be benched in the Australasian class (or exotic).

'Black Pam' was never formally described as a Dendrobium, but it has now been christened Dockrillia fuliginosa. Similarly the plant known as 'Fiery Glow' has now been named Dockrillia convoluta. Another problem, an "outcross" was made several years ago by Phillip Spence, it was a hybrid of 'Fiery Glow' and 'Black Pam'. They are not straight Dendrobium teretifolium. Yet many people who have them should keep their labels updated. You see these plants are hybrids.

Maybe you should have a break now to go and look at your orchids and relabel your plants!

It is very much on the cards that someone, somewhere in the world will do attempt a "quick fix" and transfer the new taxa/taxon back to Dendrobium. If they choose to do this they will have to find two completely different names for at least two species. As Mark Clements and David Jones were very cunning when they named Dockrillia convoluta and Dockrillia delicata. You see, we already have a Dendrobium convolutum (from section Latouria) and the natural hybrid Dendrobium X delicatum are well known and established names. It was no coincidence that these names were chosen!

What will the RHS do with Dockrillia ? I don't know the answer to that one. But I believe that Phillip Spence will find out very soon when he sends off his application for his earlier mentioned hybrid between Dockrillia fuliginosa and Dockrillia convoluta. You see they cannot be registered as Dendrobium hybrids, because they have never been formally named as dendrobiums.

Dockrillia Hybrid Rejected by R.H.S.
David P. Banks
39 Carole Street, Seven Hills NSW 2147

The Orchid Registrar of the Royal Horticultural Society in the United Kingdom has rejected the genus Dockrillia for registration purposes.

In the list of New Orchid Hybrids published in the January - February 1998 issue of The Orchid Review, the following appears under the heading of "New Combination":

To facilitate the publication of a new grex in Dendrobium in a forthcoming list of New Orchid Hybrids it is necessary to formally transfer a recently described new species of Dockrillia into Dendrobium.

Dendrobium fuliginosum (M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones) P.F. Hunt, comb. nov. Basionym: Dockrillia fuliginosa M.A. Clem. et D.L. Jones, in Lasianthera 1(1):13 (1996).

I admit to being a little disconcerted by this decision, as Dockrillia is clearly a natural genus in its own right. In our modern age of computers it would be easy to transfer the existing "terete-leafed" hybrids to Dockrillia. After all the R.H.S. had little trouble differentiating between the South American Masdevallia and Dracula (which was separated from Masdevallia in 1978) for registration purposes. We even have the combination Dracuvallia (Dracula x Masdevallia) so why could we not have "Dockrobium"? As I have said before, what will the Orchid Registrar do when Dockrillia convoluta is used in hybrids? This one cannot simply "change" to Dendrobium as we already have a Dendrobium convolutum. I am amazed that the Orchid Registrar has the "power" to change scientific names, it seems, at will, without in-depth formal reasons for this action. But then again I'm not a taxonomist.

References:

Banks, D.P. (1996). The Genus Dockrillia, the Pros and Cons, Orchadian 12 (2): 61

Clements, M.A. & D.L. Jones (1996). New species of Dendrobiinae (Orchidaceae) from Papua New Guinea, Lasianthera 1 (1): 8-25

New Orchid Hybrids. (1998) Orchid Review 106 (1219) : 62 . New Orchid Hybrids. (1998) Orchid Review 106 (1220) : 119