1) The taxonomy of Cattleya has been problematic since its inception in 1821 due to similarities with other genera like Sophronitis. Molecular studies in the late 20th century helped resolve relationships within the Cattleya alliance.
2) A recent combined study of nuclear and chloroplast DNA indicates that Sophronitis s.l. is embedded among Cattleya, supporting the lumping of these genera. Cattleya now includes 117 species.
3) Genera no longer considered part of Cattleya include Guarianthe, Laelia sensu stricto, and Rhyncholaelia. The article summarizes changes in circumscription and classification of Cattleya.
1) The taxonomy of Cattleya has been problematic since its inception in 1821 due to similarities with other genera like Sophronitis. Molecular studies in the late 20th century helped resolve relationships within the Cattleya alliance.
2) A recent combined study of nuclear and chloroplast DNA indicates that Sophronitis s.l. is embedded among Cattleya, supporting the lumping of these genera. Cattleya now includes 117 species.
3) Genera no longer considered part of Cattleya include Guarianthe, Laelia sensu stricto, and Rhyncholaelia. The article summarizes changes in circumscription and classification of Cattleya.
1) The taxonomy of Cattleya has been problematic since its inception in 1821 due to similarities with other genera like Sophronitis. Molecular studies in the late 20th century helped resolve relationships within the Cattleya alliance.
2) A recent combined study of nuclear and chloroplast DNA indicates that Sophronitis s.l. is embedded among Cattleya, supporting the lumping of these genera. Cattleya now includes 117 species.
3) Genera no longer considered part of Cattleya include Guarianthe, Laelia sensu stricto, and Rhyncholaelia. The article summarizes changes in circumscription and classification of Cattleya.
1) The taxonomy of Cattleya has been problematic since its inception in 1821 due to similarities with other genera like Sophronitis. Molecular studies in the late 20th century helped resolve relationships within the Cattleya alliance.
2) A recent combined study of nuclear and chloroplast DNA indicates that Sophronitis s.l. is embedded among Cattleya, supporting the lumping of these genera. Cattleya now includes 117 species.
3) Genera no longer considered part of Cattleya include Guarianthe, Laelia sensu stricto, and Rhyncholaelia. The article summarizes changes in circumscription and classification of Cattleya.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2
nomenclature notes
The New Cattleyas By Wesley Higgins and Cássio van den Berg
The Changing Face of an Alliance’s Classification
When John Lindley published
the genus Cattleya based on Cattleya labiata (1821), he described it as “the handsomest species of the order.” He then added Cattleya loddigesii, followed by Cattleya forbesii and Cattleya citrina to the genus (1826). Cattleya1 citrina is currently recognized as Prosthechea citrina. Thus the circumscription of Cattleya has been problematic since its inception. Flower forms in many genera of Laeliinae are similar to Cattleya, which has created taxonomic confusion. There have been numerous attempts to classify the subtribe (van den Berg and Chase 2004). In the closing decade of the last century, molecular systematics began to play an im- portant role in orchid taxonomy. As updated classifications began to be published, many plant breeders were not surprised, because it was already evident that Encyclia and Prosthechea did not breed the same and that Brazilian laelias were different from Mexican laelias, etc. When van den Berg et al. (2000) pu- blished internal transcribed spacers (ITS) sequence data (nuclear DNA), it was shown that the Brazilian species of Laelia did not belong with the Mexican Laelia group of species that included the type species of the genus. The initial solution proposed was to place the Brazilian species of Laelia into Sophronitis (van den Berg and Chase 2000, 2001). However, other authors preferred to split these species into several segregate ge- nera (Chiron and Castro Neto 2002). Both of these approaches created havoc in hybrid nomenclature as numerous new nothoge- nera (artificial genera) were published to account for changing taxonomy. 1 In 2000, the relationships of Cattleya remained unresolved despite using molecu- Because Cattleya, as previously cir- [1] Cattleya labiata, the type species of Cat- lar systematics. More recent DNA studies cumscribed, is paraphyletic to Sophronitis tleya that John Lindley named in honor of of Laeliinae are better resolved with the use s.l., it would require the creation of many William Cattley. This plate, from Collecta- of nine plastid regions (chloroplast DNA) (van den Berg et al. 2009) plus the original new genera for the various subgroups of nea Botanica (1821), is a hand-colored ITS data set (van den Berg et al. 2000). This Cattleya thus requiring new nothogenera engraving based on a drawing by Lindley. combined study indicates that even though for hybrids. A more practical (and simp- Sophronitis senso lato is always present, the ler) solution is to lump all Sophronitis s.l. den Berg (2008) has renamed the other relationships among this group (Cattleya, species with Cattleya and classify these species. In summary, Cattleya now has 117 Brassavola and Sophronitis) are different groupings at the infrageneric level (subge- recognized species, subspecies or varieties from those produced with the ITS data set nus, etc.). In this way, future infrageneric and 40 natural hybrids. A review of Cattleya alone. Sophronitis s.l. is embedded among changes would not require further binomial infrageneric taxonomy will be published in species traditionally recognized as Cat- changes, providing also nomenclatural a future article. tleya, whereas Brassavola is placed outside stability for artificial hybrids of species in Thus the question arises, “What is the Cattleya–Sophronitis clade. this alliance. Some species of the former not included in the new Cattleya?” The Brazilian Laelia and Sophronitis had ori- short answer is Guarianthe, Laelia sensu 1 Formerly Euchile. ginally been placed in Cattleya and van stricto (Mexico to Tropical America) and
344 Orchids june 2010 www.AOS.org
Rhyncholaelia. The genus Schomburgkia has gone away with some species being transferred into Myrmecophila and the rest grouping with Laelia. Rhyncholaelia2 dig- byana was also once classified as Cattleya digbyana. Hybridization could have played a significant role in the evolution of the Cattleya alliance before the early diversi- fication within each lineage. Guarianthe3 aurantiaca, Guarianthe 3 bowringiana, Guarianthe3 patinii, Guarianthe3 skinneri and Guarianthe3 ×guatemalensis (auranti- aca × skinneri) are not part of the Cattleya clade, but the assemblage only has weak support as an independent group. In some analyses, Cattleya maxima and Cattleya araguaiensis are sister (adjacent) to Gua- rianthe with weak support (van den Berg et al. 2009). Hybrids can have a negative 2 effect on parsimony analysis (Huson and Bryant 2006), creating false relationships. [2] Cattleya coccinea is illustrated as The molecular studies of Laeliinae have Sophronitis grandiflora (Plate 161) in revealed additional interesting data. Using Lindenia (1888). Lindenia — Iconographie combined plastid and nuclear phylogenies des Orchidées was one of the important in conjunction with mixed statistical infe- periodic series on orchids published dur- rence models (Bayesian), it is possible to ing the 19th century. recognize eight well-supported alliances within Laeliinae, and make deductions about biogeography, pollination system, Wesley E. Higgins, PhD, serves on the and hybridization potential. Laeliinae IUCN-SSC Orchid Specialist Group. He seems to have originated in Mexico and the is a member of the International Scientific Caribbean, and primitive members seem Committee of Lankesteriana and a research to have been originally pollinated by large associate at Centro de Investigación en Or- bees, following dispersion to Central and quídeas de los Andes, Universidad Alfredo South America and adaptive radiation due Pérez Guerrero, Ecuador. Higgins is also to change in pollinator syndromes to birds, an accredited AOS judge, an approved AOS butterflies, moths, wasps, and small bees taxonomic authority, and serves on the AOS (van den Berg et al. 2009). Publications Committee, where he coordi- nates the Nomenclature Notes column for Orchids. 5317 Delano Court, Cape Coral, References Chiron, G.R., and V.P. Castro Neto. 2002. Revision des Florida 33904 (e-mail Higgins@alumni. Espèces Brésiliennes du Genre Laelia Lindley. Rich- ufl.edu). Cássio van den Berg, PhD, gra- ardiana 2:14–28. duated in agronomy from the University of Huson, D., and D. Bryant. 2006. Application of Phylo- genetic Networks in Evolutionary Studies. Molecular São Paulo, and holds a master’s in ecology Biology and Evolution 23(2):254–267. from the Universidade Estadual de Cam- van den Berg, C. 2008. New Combinations in the Genus pinas and PhD in botany, University of Cattleya Lindl. (Orchidaceae). Neodiversity 3:3–12. Reading and the Royal Botanic Gardens, — and M.W. Chase. 2000. Nomenclature Notes on Laeliinae — I. Lindleyana 15(2):115–119. Kew. He is a professor in the Department —. 2001. Nomenclature Notes on Laeliinae — II. Lind- of Biological Sciences at Universidade Es- leyana 16(2):109–112. tadual de Feira de Santana. Van den Berg —. 2004. A Chronological View of Laeliinae Taxonomical History. Orchid Digest 68:226–254. has worked extensively on molecular and —. 2005. Nomenclatural Notes on Laeliinae. IV. New morphological systematics of Laeliinae. Combinations in Laelia and Sophronitis. Kew Bulletin Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, 59:565–567. van den Berg, C., W.E. Higgins, R.L. Dressler, W.M. Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santa- Whitten, M. Soto Arenas and A. Culham. 2000. A Phy- na, BR116 KM3, 14 44031-460, Feira de logenetic Analysis of Laeliinae (Orchidaceae) Based on Santana, Bahia, Brazil (e-mail vcassio@ Sequence Data from Internal Transcribed Spacers (ITS) gmx.de). of Nuclear Ribosomal DNA. Lindleyana 15:96–114. van den Berg, C., W.E. Higgins, R.L. Dressler, W.M. Whit- ten, M. Soto Arenas and M. Chase. 2009. A Phylogenetic Manuscript submissions for Nomenclature Study of Laeliinae (Orchidaceae) Based on Combined Notes should be sent to Higgins@alumni. Nuclear and Plastid DNA Sequences. Annals of Botany 104(3):417–430. ufl.edu. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. (2010). The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 2 Formerly Brassavola. http://www.kew.org/wcsp/. Accessed April 22, 2010. 3 Formerly Cattleya.