June 2005 mailing list messages

2005 Archived Messages

Click on the week you require.
To return to the main Archive index, click the button at the bottom of the page.
Links to all the Photos and other images accompanying the list messages can be found on the Images page.

From: Jon Loose
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:35

In short: No, but there are many more of them than most families and I
suspect that the relationships are quite difficult to decide

From: Roger Grier
Sent: 14 June 2005 19:23
To: Orchid Club
Subject: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids.

Is it just Orchids in the plant world that are constantly having name
changes???

From: aeranthes
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: names
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:40

Well said John! Each to his own trade. I do like to know the correct name for my orchids but am not hung up on it. A flower, is a flower is a flower. If it's pretty, I like it. Jean

From: Jon Loose
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] orchid names, taxonomy and common sense
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:50

I might add (to emphasise your point) however that Systematics (which
encompasses Taxonomy and Phyllogeny) is the word which explains what we
are
trying to achieve by naming systematically bring order to our
understanding of the wealth of wildlife. The problem is that there is no
system which names something definitively only as far as current
knowledge. We are trying to bring order to something which is in gradual
and
probably continuing evolution. In Taxonomy there are people which look
for
differences and err on the side of splitting and those who look for
similarities and tend to group i.e. lumpers and splitters. One
person
variety is another species because no-one can accurately define a
species
and the subjectivity of different taxonomists means that things
sometimes
switch back and forwards.

Well that probably doesn help us who suffer from the name changes
and
subsequent confusion in our researches but hopefully will in the
fullness of
time - it just may not be our time!

From: John W Stanley
Sent: 14 June 2005 22:16
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: [OrchidTalk] orchid names, taxonomy and common sense

There's been quite a lot said about the inconvenience of name changes,
professionals trying to confuse the populace at large and having nothing
better to do to earn their crust, and good ol' common sense. At the risk
of
offending everyone but really intending to pour oil on troubled water,
may I
add mi penn'th?

1. While it has to be admitted that, in any profession or occupation,
there
are some awkward customers it must also be said, in defence of
taxonomists,
that they are simply trying to clarify a classification that is getting
better and better (not necessarily more convenient!) through their
activities. If you don't believe that, then try using the alternative
archaic 'common' names for your plants and see how long you can go
before
causing even more confusion. Scientific nomenclature is far from
perfect
but, on the whole it works well, has international consistency and will
inevitably keep changing as long as more knowledge is acquired.
Classification isn't discovered, it is invented by humans in the hope of
reflecting nature to some extent.

2. 'Common sense is' a wonderful thing, provided you operate only
in the
environment in which you acquired that 'common sense' (see Einstein's
comments on it). Unfortunately, classifying or even identifying plants
isn't
'common sense' any more than nuclear physics, cosmology or higher
mathematics are common sense. Certainly Darwin and Wallace, and Gregor
Mendel would be most insulted if we were to imply that their pioneering
efforts on evolution and genetics were nothing but the common sense of
their
day! (Bet they'd have had trouble with switching a PC off using the
'start'
button . . . and yet computer operation is common sense to many 5 year
olds
now)

3. The fact is, surely, that most of us reading or writing to this forum
are
not professionals in the world of orchid systematics. Most of us are
either
very amateur growers, a few may be professional growers or (orchid)
biologists. That doesn't detract from the skills of many of our group
who
may be wizards at growing but hopeless at taxonomy, or wizards at
taxonomic
procedure and hopeless growers. Of course, a few may be both and some of
us
are neither. All of us are acquiring experience.

4. The older we get the fonder we seem to be of the good ol' days but,
of
course, we could go back far enough to the even simpler days when
ignorance
of orchids (and much else) reigned supreme and there were far less than
30,000 species or so known to deal with.

Nobody, I think, spends their professional life hell-bent on simply
confusing and annoying the rest of us (at leat, without being sussed-out
by
peers). I guess it's common sense that not many
orchid professionals are
also computer virus authors . . . . . . . of course.
Isn't there an adage from somewhere . . "if you can't beat 'em, join
'em" or
at least listen to 'em.
(Oh, and James Bateman was no mean orchid expert)

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:20

If you want to stop it - and I expect you do - you have to say that all
research work and further study stops too . And if brand new scientific
tools become available which reveal things we had no means of finding out
before , then they must not be used ( all the DNA related research for
example , not to mention the tool of cladistic analysis .

Alternatively, you can say that plants are of interest to gardeners ( on the
one hand) and scientists too ( on the other hand). What is right for one is
not necessarily right for the other. This leads to the concept of a
"horticultural species" and so on. It's the only way to make sense of
things, and it's the only way which is practical, when we have an Orchid
Register started over a hundred years ago , with over a hundred thousand
registrations. Otherwise , modern research which suggests - I think I am
right in saying this - that Laelia species should ( mostly) be renamed as
Sophronitis species , would involve renaming all the Potinaras,
Laelocattleyas, etc etc etc. and just who is going to spend the next 5 years
doing that and being paid by whom ?

Is it just Orchids in the plant world that are constantly having name
changes???

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: John's letter.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:05

First and very important question John. You said that James Bateman was no mean orchid expert. 'Was'? Do you mean that he has passed away?

Second. Have you sat down beside one or more of our wild 'Orchis' species, and then sat down beside the Pyramidal orchid?

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Doritis.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:35

My three Doritis species are at last all showing signs of coming out of 'Hibernation' and are beginning to romp away.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Purbeck stone.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:45

An experiment that I am running with Phalaenopsis is doing very well indeed. Some months ago I potted two Phalaenopsis in some broken pieces of Purbeck stone, rather large lumps as it did take some time to break the large pieces with a hammer.

In the next few weeks I intend to buy a bag of much smaller pieces of Purbeck stone and pot a few other orchids in this medium.

Instead of waiting for the results and then informing you all, I decided to let you know what I am up to straight away.

This is because if anyone wishes to do a similar test, then we can do a joint study, and also, maybe someone can give us the correct information regarding the make up of 'Purbeck stone'. For all of those who do not know what it is then let me explain. It is a type of limestone which is dug from the Swanage, Dorset area known as 'The Isle of Purbeck'.........but it aint an island!!

From: jan
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:50

Roger Grier wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Is it just Orchids in the plant world that are constantly having name changes???
>
> Rocky.
I think the orchids are particularly hard hit for several reasons. One
thing is that the traditional ways of delimiting species seem a little
ill fitted to deal with orchids - as far as I know one would normally
say that two plants are of the same species if they can produce viable
seeds together; but that would mean that orchid species were incredibly
varied to an extent that clearly seems unreasonable.

Another reason is that so much new is being discovred all the time about
orchids. Take the example with Orchis and Anacamptis - when they were
first named it seemed obvious that they are in different genera; but my
guess is that since then a lot of species that are intermediate between
Orchis and Anacamptis have been discovered, so perhaps this distinction
has to be reconsidered?

But they are not alone, I think - large parts of Rosaceae (the rose
family) are very difficult; and the fungi are not only very much in the
process of being discovered, they have actually been kicked out of the
plant kingdom altogether.

I don't remember who said thism, but it's very true: 'Research, that is
when we don't know what we are doing'.

From: Ron Bower
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Duplication.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:30

When ever I receive a message from list members, I get a repeat about 7 hours later. This only occurs with list messages. I would be grateful if anyone can tell me why this is and how I can prevent it. Ronbow.

From: Ron Bower
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:45

Rocky, No, it happens frequently. Having spent a lifetime in 'Gardening' both professional as well as for pleasure I can assure you it isn't only the Orchids. Frankly I cannot bring any particular names to mind at this moment, but I have read the RHS journal for about 50 years and have seen it regularly. Very often in Conifers I seem to recall.Ronbow.

Is it just Orchids in the plant world that are constantly having name changes???

From: Ronald Newstead
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] names
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:35

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] John's letter.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:05

Well Rocky,
maybe we're not talking about the same Bateman! I am thinking of the Staffordshire Buddulph Grange Bateman, a contemporary of Charles Darwin (with orchidaceous connections). Don't know when he died but he must be getting on a bit if he hasn't yet!!
Put my ignorance right by telling me which Bateman you are referring to.

Really, I was not trying to get at anyone in particular, just having a dig at the (I think) misplaced grousing about a system of nomenclature (and phylogeny) that we all need to be very thnakful for. Nice to know that there are so many like-minded folks amongst us (although, no doubt, we'll all continue to have a friendly grouse when the next familiar name is replaced!)
heers
John

First and very important question John. You said that James Bateman was no mean orchid expert. 'Was'? Do you mean that he has passed away?

Second. Have you sat down beside one or more of our wild 'Orchis' species, and then sat down beside the Pyramidal orchid?

From: Jessica Mary MacDonald\(AHP\)
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: mail
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:20

Hello, can anyone help? I am trying to track down a Vanda Coerulea, seedling
or plant. Does anyone know where I can find one?

From: John W Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Wild orchids and other life and death forms..
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:55

Hi Rocky,
No! There are changes in all groups.It's probable that you notice changes in orchids because you are an expert and notice them. Here are a few common ones though this list isn't definitive . . (just my amateur impression that someone better informed may correct). Think of Geranium / Pelargonium (?spelling). Datura seems to have partly become Brugmansia according to whether or not the trumpet flowers are up or down-opening. Tradescantia has has a good run for its money (no it isn't, yes it is no, yes,. . . .) I think that what we all have been calling Trescantia actually really now is Tradescantia. Even biggies like the famous Sierra Giant Sequoias aren't out of the wood yet (groooaaaaaan). I think there's a USA v UK controversy dormant in there somewhere. Does anyone know if S.gigantea is a valid name now?
At the other end of the scale are the blue-green algae that plague your aquarium tank. They aren't algae since they were re-classified as Cyanobacteria in the 70s or 80s.
If you look around the nurseries/garden centres you'll see lots of plants popularly known by their old familiar scientific latin name but (in smaller print) corrected to their newer scientific name.
The same is true of animals - dead or alive (ie. fossils are subject to the same nomenclatural system). With fossil plants things can be even worse (better?) because so seldom is a fossil plant with roots, stem branches, leaves and fruit found intact. Therefore, each component has to be treated to a name of its own just in case a cone or a fruit doesn't really belong to the plant it was thought to belong to. Hence Lepidodendron, lepidostrobus, Lepidocarpus
Botanical and zoological nomenclatural rules are slightly different from each other but both rely on a fall-back system of priority. This is why there is so much fuss when a long lost (but prior and valid) name is discovered and applied at the expense of the familiar but junior and later one.
Even at the level of kingdoms there have been relatively recent changes (Whadayamean, the sixties isn't recent?). I'll bet most of us grew up with simply plants or animals (some may remember "Animal, Vegetable or Mineral"). Well, now, the fungi aren't plants any more and there are at least five (I think) major life groups at the status of the old kingdoms.
Look through any good flora (of life group identification handbook) and you'll see reference to synonyms which may be lapsed names after revisions as well as the more obvious long established mis-identifications.
That's life (and even death)
At least, we all know an orchid when we see one. It's just a matter of deciding which in the thousands it is. At least they don't fly off!
Ding! Ding! Dingaling! Class dismissed.(Sorry, didn't mean to deliver a lesson!)
For homework try http://www.palaeos.com/Kingdoms/kingdoms.htm (There may be better sites but this is a start from a quick search)
Cheers
John Stanley

From: John W Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: John's letter.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:05

I am embarrassingly ignorant of our (UK) wild orchids except for obvious species like bee orchids Marsh Orchids and early Purples etc and so on. I have sat down beside Orchis canariensis near Santiago del Teide in Tenerife and i think I have seen another orchid (ie Orchis) species without a flower on the other side of that island.

However, I suspect that the point you are making is the amazing difference between selected cultivated orchids and their wild relatives. I think this goes for most cultivated species (not hybrids) that are artificially chosen and selected through a kind of forced evolutionary process (substitute human selection for natural selection and isolate from undesired plants and the changes are accelerated). Also, we try to raise 'em in favourable conditions, not just in the conditions they'll tolerate in competition with other plants. Some of the characteristics were are fond of as humans may well be detrimental to a plant in the wild. Albinism for example?. Again, someone, somewhere in an orchid forum near us might help.
Cheers
John

From: dennis READ
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Orchid beginings
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:10

All this talk of orchid divisions has got me wondering where it all began. Are there any fossil imprints of orchids?
How did such a diverse familly start?
How did they all evolve with the same basic structure/?
Was it before or after the continents divided?
Does anyone know and could I be pointed to a web site.
Regards.

From: Jean Lewis
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: plantfinder
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:30

Jessica I found a site with a plantfinder which is supposed to trawl orchid nursery sites looking for any plant. I did it for the Vanda you want but it said "Sorry no nursery is stocking that plant at present" - maybe one of our members knows someone who does stock it. Good luck with your search. Jean

From: Ron Bower
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Purbeck stone.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:30

Hello Rocky,
Maybe I have missed something, but why should Burbeck stone be any better for growing Phals than any other stone? It is maybe less porous than softer stone which maybe could be a benefit perhaps, and I am interested as to why you wish to experiment with it? As you know I am following your advice and growing some Phals in river bed type pebbles and they are doing OK, not better than those in bark but no worse and less bother.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Bateman.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:30

The 'Bateman' that I was on about is I believe well and truly still with us. He and another chap named 'Denholm' once wrote an article about I believe, Dactylorchids in a magazine called, 'Watsonia'.

I have decided that after listening to so many of our members who had some input about my annoyance with the name changes to just forget the Botanical names, and call them what we have been calling them for many many years. So, the 'Green veined orchid' will always be the Green veined orchid.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Bateman.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:00

Ahhhh!
You mean the Green Winged Orchid (Orchis morio), otherwise known as the Green Veined Orchid (a synonym?).and looking very similar to the Early Purple Orchid (Orchis mascula) except for its lack of spots eh?

(Sorry Rocky; couldn't resist. Actually, I hadn't the foggiest idea what a green-veined orchid was until I just looked it up on the web - that fount of all useless knowledge where I learned also about the green winged one
Bet you were impressed though!).

Sorry about the Bateman crossed wires but what a name to have in the orchid world.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Orchid beginings
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:05

Clearly the true Cyprepedia evolved before the single continent split up -
that's why they are found in North America and Eurasia . Bulbophyllums too I
think - Africa , India and Asia here. But I don't know of any others
offhand.

And how did they start ? Its so long ago that even an old man like me
struggles to remember ( joke ) .

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Purbeck stone.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:50

Hi Rocky,
Having already sent far too much to Orchid Talk for a day I thought I'd send you some thoughts on Purbeck Limestone but it all bounced back. Can you let me have an email by which I can reach you?
John Stanley

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Purbeck stone.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:00

As many of you will know, I grow only in stone chippings, and I am continually experimenting with other 'Permanent mediums', and the reason is that I hope that it will enable people to not have orchids die on them because the 'trype' [new word] of compost that some orchids are potted in is not at all good.

I happened to have a few pieces of it lying around so I smashed them up into pieces the size of large to medium bark and potted up a couple of Phallys in it.

I have also five large pieces of a large Cattleya which I split growing in another type of stone. This one has a higher 'lime' content. All are doing very well so far.

Purbeck stone as most of us will know was formed millions of years ago by sea deposits, mainly small creatures, and that is about as far as my knowledge extends.

It's just that I had this notion that the 'contents' of the Purbeck stone may in some way be beneficial. Time will tell..........not twenty five millions years though!

I still find that one of the best and cheapest mediums is broken pieces of clay flower pots, and I am sure that most of you will have some of these in your garden somewhere.

From: Rudolf Günnel
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk]
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:00

The German nursery "Orchideen Wlodarzcyk"
http://www.orchideenwlodarczyk.de/ is offering Vanda coerulea at
present.
They do shipping in all EU-countries.
The price for the plant is 35.00 Euro (ca. £ 23.00) the shipping costs
within the EU are 7.00 Euro (ca. £ 5.00). The payment for EU-countries
outside Germany is cash in advance because the fees for cash on delivery
are too expensive.
I hope that helps you.
Best regards from Germany, Rudolf

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Purbeck stone.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:55

As far as I can tell from my experiments, no Phalaenopsis can live for 25
million years, so don't waste your time trying Roger.

It's just that I had this notion that the 'contents' of the Purbeck stone
may in some way be beneficial. Time will tell..........not twenty five
millions years though!

From: Rudolf Günnel
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] RE: Wild orchids.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:10

It is hard to accept but the names of many orchids will change seemingly
in the near future.
So far morphological characters were the basis for describing and
distinguishing of plants and of course orchids, too. For example, the
genera Oncidium was distinguished from Odontoglossum by the angle
between the lip and column.
These marks are often very uncertain and subjective perceptible by the
author of the plant description (see Jon‹s remark about lumpers and
splitters).
Although visible features are necessary for purposes of identification,
now scientists and botanists are sure that DNA sequence data have
several advantages over
them.
Certain genera are e.g. Paphiopedilum, Phagmipedium, Cypripedium and the
majority of orchid genera that are easily and visible defined by
distinctive morphological
traits e.g. Vanilla, Restrepia, Catasetum, Gongora. Changes will occur
in the genera Laelia (Laelias from Brazil will become Sophronitis),
Pleurothallis, Epidendrum, Oncidium, Ondontoglossum, Miltonia and some
others more. The genus Ochis is involved, too (unfortunately for you
Rocky).
Cattleya aurantiaca, C. skinneri and C. bowringiana shall be the new
genus ›Guananthe“.
And even the Royal Horticultural Society is thinking about the
consequences for the International Hybrid Register of the RHS. The
Advisory Panel on Orchid Registrations (APOR) of the RHS is searching
for solutions how to consider the changing of orchid names in the
future.

From: dennis READ
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Orchid beginings
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:25

Thanks to John Stanley for a marvellous explanation.It will take me a while to study all the references. In future when I am eating my asparagus or fried onion rings I'll think of my orchid's ancestors living at at the same time as the dinosaurs and prior to the development of grass. With Johns permission I'll forward his informative response to those who ask for it.

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Fossil orchids.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:40

Yes mate, fossil orchids and where are they? Apparently there are none as orchids evolved much later than the 'rest'.

Being a bit of an amateur archaeologist myself, confined to scratching about in a little stream in the New Forest picking up sea shells that date back about twenty five million years or so, I was always interested in the lack of orchid fossils.

I have always thought that orchids evolved, were created, or whatever, long after the nasty creatures were blitzed out of existence. Maybe a much nicer God/creator/happening was in charge then as they are so pretty and the pollination devices so elaborate.

Just look at how the pollinia fastens itself to an insect, and if anyone has never witnessed the pollinia discharge from a Catasetum........well, now there is a sight.

To prove a point I will tell you about the pollinia from a Pyramidal orchid. The type that grows in our countryside. It has two pollinia attached to a sort of saddle shaped strap, which actually wraps itself around the tongue of the visiting butterfly or moth. Now to me that is 'Mother nature' at her best.......the mind boggles.

Please look carefully at the attached photo and you can see several pollinia wrapped around the base of the tongue of a Burnett moth.

From: James H
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Purbeck stone.
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:15

i just go to my local nurserys walmart and canadian tire and ask for
pieces of all their broken pots or anyother broken clay they might
have and i get way more than i need. im just about to try broken
bathroom tiles but i think they might not hold enough water.. but i
will find out.
james

> I still find that one of the best and cheapest mediums is broken pieces o
f
> clay flower pots, and I am sure that most of you will have some of these
in
> your garden somewhere.
> 20
> Regards, Rocky.

From: francis quesada pallares
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Miltonia identification?
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:25

Some 5 or 6 months ago, I rescued this orchid from a
garden center. It was out of flower and untagged, so I
could only guess what it was. Recently, this flower
opened, and lo and behold, I was blown away by its
beauty!

The flower is darker than the photos show. Its texture
is thick and waxy, and there is another bud maturing
just behind the open flower.

There is lots of growth, both new since I bought the
plant and emerging now too! the plant is really pot
bounded, so I'm thinking repoting it into a bigger
pot. At the moment I have great difficulty when
watering, as the water does barely tocuh the compost,
and it is always dry to the touch, so most of the new
growth came up with concertina leaves!

I have looked up on the net, and the best name I could
came up with is Miltonia Honolulu. Any other
suggestions?

If you agree with my guess, can you let me know what
type of temperatures range is better? Some sites say
as molt miltonias, on the cooler range, but other
sites say that Honolulu is one of the warmer types,
doing well in the intermediate range.

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Purbeck stone
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:55

Hi Rocky,
Purbeck marble, a nonmarine marble, used in architecture and sculpture
on account of its high gloss.
Phallies actually grow in anything. More important is the right temperature
range and the type of fertilizer.
Btw, to use your own words, in connection with sphagnum moss:
I have never seen any stones on a tree!!!!!

From: aeranthes
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: miltonia
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:30

What a wonderful orchid Francis you must be thrilled with it. I'd love one but I am the kiss of death to all Miltonia - just can't keep them for some reason. It's a real beauty - good luck with it.
Rocky - what a remarkeable photograph! I have seen similar camera shots on T.V. Yes I agree with you - Mother Nature at her best. Jean

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] RE: Purbeck stone.
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:20

Wow Geoff,
Y'mean you conducted experiments for 24,999,999 years? Then you're older than I would have guessed . . . and wearing pretty well I might add.
Never mind; I once had a student email me as "The Fossil Man". I never managed to find out which of the two words the emphasis was on! But even I am pessimistic about 25,000,000; 100 and still as youthful as now is my aim.I once showed my grandson a pic of the Golden Gate Bridge and remarked that it was completed in the year I was born. He looked at it, looked at me, looked back at the bridge, thought for a momrnt or two and then said "It must be very old" !Cheers
John S.

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Tolumnias/Equitants
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:25

Hi everybody,
the attached picture shows a way to grow Tolumnias without the problem
of overwatering. Somehow it works better than attached to any kind of
bark. I don't know why but, the roots are spreading in all directions.
It gets watered/sprayed every day at 10 am and then the roots are dry
by nightfall. In winter it gets water once a week.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Fossil orchids.
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:05

Liked the photo!
Can I take up the fossil orchid thing?
If you think about it, most things you can see living (in,say, the New Forest) aren't very likely to be preserved as fossils.because they'll be eaten or rot soon after death. Indeed, most living things aren't. The highest chances of being fossilised are organisms living in the sea where sediment deposition is quicker than scavengers can remove the evidence and/or the orgasism has indigestible/resistant hard parts. For plants you need something like acidic swamp conditions where bacteria don't have as much effect as they do in most other environments.

Orchids aren't very woody and their tissues usually break down long before they can be buried and sealed into the sediment. The best preserved bits of plants are spores, pollen and tough woody parts. Microfossil spores are found from the Carboniferous of some 300 million years ago and equivalent tiny spore-like fossils come from as far back as the Silurian (400+million). However, to my knowledge, no orchid seed or pollen has ever been recorded in palaeonological studies.

When terrestrial plants are fossilised they tend to be species washed into shallow seas or rare circumstances (like the Mesozoic fossils trees in thge Arizona Petrifies forest National Park. I know of two alleged fossil orchids but both reveal vague similarities that would fail to convince a cynic (and me!)

The most likely evidence for the phylogeny of orchids comes from gene sequencing where an objective measure of closeness of relationship and relative time apart for different groups can be convincingly measured. When applied years ago to the birds, ornithologists were happy because the results confirmed traditional taxonomy. When applied to orchids there is less agreement with tradition and folks get upset. Maybe there's more at stake when changes happen.
Funny ol' world
John Stanley

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Fossil orchids.(spelling correction)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:00

Oops! Sorry; in my lest email please read palaeo-palynological (ancient palynology or ancient-pollen studies) for the word in which I missed out a few crucial letters!
Incidentally, what proportion of the global flora is represnted in the fossil record? . . . not a lot! At least by comparison with marine faunas. This is precisely because terrestrial environments aren't conducive to fossil preservation.
Cheers
John

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Orchid beginings
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:00

Hi Dennis, Feel free to send to whoever you wish but please make sure that I'm not portrayed as any kind of authority. My knowledge of geology and biology merely help me to point folks in the right direction (hopefully!).
There are lots more sites; some highly technical, some a bit newsy/dramatic but if you search with right words quite a bit comes out. However, be careful of the nutters out there who fill up the web with all sorts of junk. Always look at the author's credentials!
Cheers
John

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Geoff's humour.
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:00

Loved the humour, and I'm not quite that old!!! One thing that did spring to mind from your humorous comment was that a Phalaenopsis is a monopodial grower.

I guess that most people do not get their Phallys to live that long enough to appreciate this fact.

I grow one of my 'explanation plants' like this. It is a Phalaenopsis that is beginning to look like the neck of a vulture, quite a length of rhizome with roots everywhere, and on top of that a good spread of roots and three flower spikes. Evidence of previous flower spikes are well in evidence. Must have had it for several years now, not quite into the hundreds yet.

From: James H
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Miltonia identification?
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:20

i dont know what the name is but what a find, i have personally found
a few milt at grocery stores that have turned out to be beautiful, one
is just opening so i will take a pic and post it here to find a name
if i can,
james

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Miltonia identification?
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:30

Yes it could be ; I have the same grex as "Warnes Best" variety and it is
like this . About 3 1/2 inches from top to toe.

From: Rudolf Günnel
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Fossil orchids.
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:10

Fossil orchids do exist but apparently not much! In one of my orchid
books is a picture of a fossil orchid pod (I admit it isn‹t a really
good one).
It shows the pod of the orchid ’Orchidacites‹ from the Upper-Pliocene (3
Million years old) and it was found in a clay pit near Willershausen in
the Harz mountains (Germany).
Orchids are herbs and therefore soft and that‹s the problem. Generally
the dead bodies of orchid plants decayed very fast without any remains.
Contrary of animals (bones) and trees (wood) they had no firm substance
that lasted out inside a soil layer or so (except the seed pod).
Scientists date back the beginning of orchids‹ development to 60 „ 70
million years to the beginning of the Tertiary period (some say even 120
million years).
The great number of species is the result of their genetic potential and
their ability to adapt to new or changed environmental conditions.
Every day we can see it with our plants.

From: James H
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: can you spot the error
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:45

i hope everyone here notices this right away,
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item3D3980403773

From: francis quesada pallares
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Fossil orchids.(spelling correction)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:30

Also because flora have very few hard body parts, with
the exception of seed pods, and fruit seeds, maybe
some tree's wood and outer hard cases of fruit pods,
there isn't many things that can be preserved as
fossils unless the conditions are extremely right for
it.

Many of the more delicate fossils, such as insect
wings and softer plants parts are preserved because
they fell into some sort of stagnant lakes and swamps,
where there were no currents and no oxygen to support
the bacteria that would decompose any soft tissue.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] RE: Slightly OT - Digital Cameras
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:05

There's a new Pentax Optio WP which appeals to me, and Jessops are selling
it for £199 ( reduced from the launch price of £299).

I have not used one, but Pentax claim macro down to 1cm from the lens front,
3x optical zoom, 5 megapixels, takes SD memory card, has large LCD viewing ,
and the big feature is that it is waterproof even to total immersion , which
makes it very useful for general holiday pics etc without worrying about
getting rain on it. ( I destroyed an expensive camera once when I had it on
my chest and there was a shower of rain - catching me without a coat or
anything -I was in a so-called desert in the middle east at the time and had
not then learnt the lesson that yes, it does sometimes rain in deserts ) and
its made me very cautious ever since.
And it‹s the usual slim pocketable size.

Others I want to look at for other features are the Olympus Digital 500
which supposedly has a viewing screen (LCD) which is clear from any angle in
any kind of light - which you can't say for most. Also the Panasonic LUMIX
DMC- FX7 - which like almost all of the latest generation slim-line
pocketable digitals is 5 mpx, 3:1 optical zoom , big clear screen, 15 or 20
"scene modes" which almost certainly includes macro , but this one has image
stablisiation included , which definitely makes for sharper hand-held pics.

The one thing to watch for in "macro" is that whilst it once meant 1:1
capability on a 35mm frame, it now means " focuses closer than normal" so
you always need to try it out, and check whether you get auto-focus with the
macro - sometimes you can switch it off and manually focus, others merely
focus sharp at set distances which you are expected to remember . The
adverts don't tell you, and the average shop assistant will just make a
guess. Best try it out at the counter !.

From: Jon Loose
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] RE: Slightly OT - Digital Cameras
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:35

I have just acquired the 7 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 7900 which focuses to 4cm
for £225. It is excellent on the close-ups, possibly a bit weak on long
distance flash but will also do movie clips - could be handy for those
momentous occasions. Flash can be used down to 1 foot. The weight is 150g
(under 6 ounces). I bought it for general use as well as close-ups. The
other one I looked at was the Fuji F10 which also looks very good.

From: Ronald Newstead
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] RE: Slightly OT - Digital Cameras
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:35

I have just acquired the Lumix you refer to, Geoff, ( an impetuous buy in
the duty free) mainly because I liked the idea of its having a Leica lens
but I have not had the opportunity to try it out to any degree yet. It is a
very handy size but in order to achieve this it has dispensed with the
optical viewfinder, which I miss.
I have yet to find out how to make it use more than a small part of the 5 mp
so my first pictures are rather grainy, more my fault than the camera's, I
am sure.

From: Peter Fowler
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Tolumnias/Equitants
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:10

Peter , What is the substrate you use for your Equitants. Looks
interesting.
Do they flower well?

From: Peter Fowler
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Purbeck stone
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:15

Peter, When you talk of Purbeck marble (non-marine), it is different
from Purbeck limestone, which is marine Oolitic (small eggs) limestone.
Used it to build Westminster Abbey plus others.

From: Peter Fowler
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] AW: Fossil orchids.
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:20

Rudolf. It is a brilliant picture of a fossil seed pod. The chances of
that being covered quickly before it decayed and fossilised is a
miracle. First of all it looks like a crinoid but on closer inspection
is definitely a seed pod.

MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE	MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE
January	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	February	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-28
March	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	April	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
May	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	June	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
July	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	August	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
September	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	October	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
November	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	December	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31

2005 Archived Messages

June 15-21