New proposals suggest changes in the generic classification of orchids, but are those real entities or just a way to develop the ego of orchid taxonomists?
This depends on your definition of “real.” Species (however you choose to define them) can be placed in monophyletic groups; so the group is real. However the names applied to these groups; genera, tribe, family etc. are subjective. So genera or other supra-specific taxa could be considered as not real but only human constructions.
Raymond’s comments point out that there is not consensus on what a species is (species concepts).
I agree with Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Higgins. The high floral variability (that seems contingent to the family) and the frequent occurrence of natural hybrids (in some cases, intergeneric hybrids) make difficult to establish “natural entities” in Orchidaceae at any taxonomic level. Thus, the typological approach seems inappropriate. I think that given the diversity of orchids we should consider how feasible is to apply a more integrative approach (as proposed by Dr. Tremblay). For instance, increasing hybridization events detected in orchids call into question molecular phylogenetic trees. Genetic flux between species is probably a key process in diversification of orchids. In the case of species or genera that originated by hybridization, phylogenetic methods sometimes yield wrong evolutionary relationships which ultimately leads to new taxonomic classifications. In addition, results depend on whether researchers use genetic markers of maternal or biparental heredity. However, I personally think that trying to establish categories above the species level is useful, because it provides a framework to subsequent studies from different fields in order to achieve a definite classification system.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction