Talk:Orchid

Template:FAOL actually launches its pollen sacks with incendiary force when prompted.

I'm looking for that one! My mother in law is coming over! BTW anyone know it's name? ref?

Okay it's not incendiary it's explosive (which makes more sense!) here's the ref, do a search for 'viscid' a word we can use everyday!

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/orchids/orchids_04.htm

I replaced the old image with one that seems more appropriate to me. Hope that's OK. AFAICT, the old one was just what the author was able to find that was public domain, but it showed two kinds of flowers, only one of which was an orchid. -- user:Bcrowell

Not all masdevallia smell of rotting flesh, AFAIK! Most have no scent, although a couple do smell of rotting carrion (M. atahualpa and M. colossus). Some smell very pleasant, apparently (M. lehmannii, M. glandulosa). --Amortize 15:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bulbophyllums are a better example of this. I'll update the page.

Should the subfamilies be mentioned here?

I realise this is potentially "controversial", since the subfamilies seem to get revised a lot. From the Kew Gardens site, http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/data/monocots/orchid_intro.html , I got these subfamilies: Apostasioideae, Cypripedioideae, Vanilloideae, Orchidoideae and Epidendroideae. I'm more used to another classification, the Dressler 1981 classification which has Vandoideae as a subfamily.

--Amortize 16:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The subfamilies are mentioned on the page List of Orchidaceae genera JoJan 15:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I uploaded some pictures I took.

Kowloonese 09:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is that image labeled "An orchid" in this article actually a Lily? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. See http://images.google.com/images?q=Stargazer%20lily%20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi . I'm going to remove it. ~ FriedMilk 05:58, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Article title: Orchidaceae or Orchid?

Is there any reason not to move this article to orchid (now a redirect)? Seems a bit odd to have it under the family name (Tree of Life convention holds that organisms should go under common name if it's common enough). If nobody objects, I'll move it in a few days' time. -- Hadal 03:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection, but would prefer the name 'Orchid family', since the word 'orchid' rather designates a single orchid. JoJan 05:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No non-orchids in Orchidaceae, right? If so, then "orchid" is correct; "X family" is only desirable when "X" by itself is different, as in "mallow family" which includes okra and cotton and other non-mallows. Stan 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the orchid family there species with names like Adam and Eve, Crested Coralroot, Fairy Slipper, Grasspink, Keyflower, Ladies'-tresses and Rattlesnake Plantain JoJan 07:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is kind of a subtle point, but the presence of common names without "orchid" is not decisive, because there are lots of weird common names. For instance, at [1] the writer explains that rattlesnake plantains "are not actually plantains; they are orchids", instead of saying "a member of the orchid family Orchidaceae". This is different from okras, for which nobody seems to say "Okra is actually a kind of mallow" - they always say "mallow family" or "related to mallows". After thinking about it some more, I'm half-inclined just to leave all families at "aceae" even if it's not quite WP standard, because with the ongoing churn of plant taxonomy, any common name for a family is just one paper away from being a valid synonym for an "aceae". 1/2 :-) Stan 15:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whenever I start a new page about a family, I usually name it by its scientific name, while on top of the taxobox I put the common name (if there is one). Trouble is, there might be different common names, such as in Asteraceae : the sunflower family, the aster family or even (in older texts) the composite family. I didn't start the Orchidaceae, therefore the original author put "orchids" instead of orchid family on top of the taxobox (I worked on the list of the Orchidaceae genera). Anyway, starting an article by its scientific name and another by its common name does not give much uniformity to the whole body of ToL articles. There have been discussions about this before, but, personnaly, I'm inclined to use the scientific name. JoJan 15:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know the scientific name is more desirable from an academic standpoint, but we are aiming for mass consumption here. To JoJan: your objection seems to be due to the fact that not all members of the Orchidaceae have the name "orchid" in their common name, and therefore the title "orchid" would be inaccurate to some degree(?). But if having this article under the name "orchid" is undesirable, why does "orchid" redirect to it? Shouldn't it be a separate article then? Also, are there a significant number of plants called "orchids" that are not part of the Orchidaceae, or any within the Orchidaceae that would not be called an "orchid" in essence?

I'll hold off from moving the article for now ("orchid family" doesn't seem right either, if the "orchid" redirect is valid) since I wouldn't want to defy anyone's botanical sensibilities. ;) -- Hadal 06:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have read your objections. First of all, I didn't redirect the article from Orchid to Orchidaceae. That was done in February 2002 (see History of Orchid). And, in my opninion, the orginal author was right in this respect for the reasons given above. There are too many orchids with strange names : see Dragon's Mouth. As Stan Shebs mentioned , here above, Rattlesnake Plantain was called in that website an orchid an not "a member of the orchid family Orchidaceae". Quite right. But the inverse reasoning does not hold, since not all orchids with common names are called an orchid. As a matter of consistency, I would prefer Orchidaceae, or at least 'the Orchid Family'. The last name covers all orchids, even those which aren't called orchid at all. As to the redirect, I agree that this redirect shouldn't exist at all, but instead would need a short article, explaining what an orchid is. It would then refer to the Orchidaceae ( or Orchid family ?) article. Perhaps, Hadal, are you willing to write those few lines ? JoJan 12:47, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I know you're not responsible for the redirect. I must say I don't personally agree with the objection based on common name variance, however; I've written many articles on fish families whose members don't all share a common name descriptor, but are all known in the literature as an "X" of some sort. Your example of the Dragon's Mouth illustrates this: while the first paragraph says it's in "the orchid family", the next paragraph goes on to say "This terrestrial and very rare orchid occurs in the temperate regions of North America, mainly in Eastern Canada and Eastern USA." (Emphasis mine.) I don't personally know of any members of the Orchidaceae that would never be called an orchid, but I'm not challenging you for examples. However, I know botany is somewhat different, with (as Stan mentions) much cloudier taxa than ichthyology has to deal with. And as I'm even more of a layman to the former than I am to the latter, I'll humbly cede to your argument. Things can stay as they are; I also wouldn't feel comfortable writing anything at [[orchid]]. I'm sorry for the trouble. -- Hadal 08:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fish (and other areas) there has been a conscious effort to align families with common names to the extent that they are synonyms, with genera often seeming kind of random, while in botany genera are the key "natural" units, with families being based on often-subtle criteria. Orchidaceae is one of the few plant families that even have a common name reasonably corresponding to the family, so it comes down to a choice of going with the encyclopedia-wide rule or treating plant families consistently (it would be handy to have a Category:Plant families so we could review). I don't think a separate article makes sense, because it will be two sentences saying "orchids are mostly Orchidaceae and vice versa" and that is just standard article-top verbiage limiting the subject before diving into detail. So I lean towards redirecting "orchid" to here, although with a bit of misgiving. Stan 13:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basic features of orchids

"All orchids have these four basic features :

the flower is bilaterally symmetrical
the pollen are glued together into the pollinia, a mass of waxy pollen on filaments.
the seeds are microscopically small, lacking endosperm (food reserves)
the seeds can only germinate in symbiosis with specialized fungi."

The defining characteristic of orchids is the presence of a column, not any of these traits. Most of the characteristics currently listed in the article have exceptions: there are some orchids (e.g. Mormodes) that are asymmetrical. Disa do not have microscopic seeds, and the seeds can germinate without fungus (in fact, all orchids can be germinated in laboratories on agar). This should be corrected in the "general Characteristics" section. Nighthawk4211 05:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. However, these four characteristics are mentioned in my orchid handbook. I admit the column should be added as a characteristic. As to the seeds, I'll make the addition "under natural circumstances", since indeed they can be germinated without fungus in labaratories.

These characteristics can also be found on this website [[2]] As to the exception of Mormodes, there is no mention in my handbook. However I found this text "The lip (of Mormodes fractiflexa) is glabrous and saddle-shaped, with the margins strongly and unequally revolute, forming a more or less obovoid, asymmetrical structure", which deals with the labellum and does not mention the whole flower [[3]]. Perhaps you have better and more convincing sources. As to the seeds of Disa, I haven't found any mention of larger seeds. JoJan 16:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just looked around online for more information regarding Disa seeds, and verified that they are much larger than the seeds of most orchids (see, e.g., [[4]], which cites 1.1-mm-long seeds, much larger than normal orchid seeds). I also found pages where Disa growers were arguing with regard to whether or not Disa can germinate in the absence of micorrhizae; it seems clear that they can germinate with some success on boiled sphagnum, and that seeds grow faster than those of other orchids, so they may in fact be able to germinate without fungus. However, I haven't seen anything discussing the internal structure of the seeds. Nighthawk4211 17:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm,I'll add Disa cardinalis as an exception. JoJan 17:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question about photos

I have a number of photos of orchids taken in Thailand, but unfortunately I don't know the common names let alone the scientific names of them. For most I could probably find a Thai name, but that isn't likely to help me tie them up with the correct articles either. Should I upload the images anyway and just point to a gallery on my user page? Or do I just forget about them. --KayEss 13:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the picture in the taxobox actually a Vanda coerulea hybrid? It looks like a Phalaenopsis, or possibly a Doritaenopsis, but I find it hard to believe that it has Vanda in its background.

It is difficult to give a proper name to an orchid, based solely on a photo. Too many parameters are missing, such as size, habit etc. I have a photo of a Vanda coerulea hybrid that almost looks exactly the same (see also [[5]]), even if these hybrids are mostly coloured blue. On the other hand, this picture of a Phalaenopsis sp. [[6]] is as good as the same. Since it was originally labelled as a Phalaenopsis, I'll reverse the caption back to Phalaenopsis. JoJan 09:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which order is correct

which order is the correct order of Orchidaceae，Orchidales or Asparagales？

According to APG II, the authoritative work on plant taxonomy above the level of family, Orchidales Raf. (1815) = Asparagales. Therefore the order Asparagales is to be used for the family Orchidaceae Juss. (1789). JoJan 09:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ghost Orchid

Okay, I do not know how to request an article, but I figure you all would be the second best people to come to. I was wanting an Article on the illusive Ghost Orchid, and their appears to not be one. Whatever you could do would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, MKultra

Done. See Ghost Orchid JoJan 16:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are orchids saprophytes? Parasites?

First of all, I know nothing about orchids, which is why I was on the page in the first page. When I read the line:

Some lack chlorophyll and are saprophytic. These are mycotrophic, i.e. they are completely dependent on soil fungi growing on decaying plant matter (usually fallen leaves) for nutrients

having never heard the term saprophytic before, I followed the link and found facts in that article which should be incorporated into the Orchid (err, Orchidaceae) article, if true, or the Saprotroph article be needs fixed (if false). I know nothing of this area, so I cannot help, other than to point out this problem.

Here are the items (from Saprotroph) that should be reflected in the Orchidaceae article, or fixed:

"Saprophyte is an older term that is now considered obsolete. The suffix -phyte means "plant", however, there are no truly saprotrophic organisms that are embryophytes, and fungi and bacteria are no longer placed in the Plant Kingdom. Plants that were once considered saprophytes, such as non-photosynthetic orchids and monotropes, are now known to be parasites on other plants. They are termed myco-heterotrophs because a mycorrhizal fungus connects the parasitic plant with its host plant."

Can an expert please fix this?

David Henderson 17:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've adapted the text to your objections. Nevertheless, the term saprophyte and saprophytic is still in current use. See here Saprophytic orchids of Dallas] and Saprophytic plants and in numerous other internet sites (just put "saprophytic + orchid" in Google). JoJan 19:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan, Thanks for the fix, but just to be clear, my issue was the difference between the sites. I was not sure which article was accurate. I have to say I'm still confused... you say "Some lack chlorophyll and are parasites (formerly called saprophytes)", but from what I see, saprophytes are not parasites, but perhaps my comprehension of the articles is incorrect. David Henderson 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with this either. I've put the question to User talk:Peter G Werner, the original author of the changes in Saprotroph. I'm waiting for his answer. JoJan 08:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply, but I don't check my user talk on a regular basis, so I didn't see your question until now. Anyway, I stand by what I wrote, in the strongest terms - "saprophyte" is an obsolete term - it specifically means a plant that is a decomposer. In biology, we now know that there are no green plants that are decomposers. The various plant groups, such as achlorophyllous monotropes and orchids, that were once referred to as "saprophytes" and thought to be decomposers are now known to be epiparasites upon the plants and fungi engaged in an ectomycorrhizal relationship. Achlorophyllous orchids should therefore be referred to as "myco-heterotrophs" or "epiparasites", but not "saprophytes".

References - you might want to start with Taylor and Bruns (1997), which can be found here: [7]. I don't have the references handy, but I could also point you to some recent stable isotope studies showing a clear flow from ectomycorrhizal carbon to the orchid.

I also take issue with your method of finding that the term "saprophyte" is still a current term. You did what, a Google search? Give me a break! You can always find any number of people using any number of obsolete terms. It does not mean those terms or concepts are in any way scientifically current.

--Peter G Werner 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification. Ãs to the Google search : I didn't find any connection between the words saprophyte and parasite. That's why I was a bit confused. JoJan 06:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently contributed a fully referenced article on myco-heterotrophy that should clarify this issue. Also, I went and changed the term "saprophyte" to "myco-heterotroph" in a number of the orchid articles. Peter G Werner 07:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel Orchid plate

I just scanned and uploaded a really great image from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, which shows a wide variety of orchids; I think it would be appropriate as an image on this page, both because of its variety and historical significance.--ragesoss 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this image would be the fitting image for the taxobox, since it shows a wide variety of orchids. JoJan 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section on how to care for an orchid?

Hey,

The previous tenant in my apartment left an orchid behind, and now I don't know how to take care of it. I thought I could find out by visiting good 'ol Wikipedia but, alas, there was no section on how to care for orchids. Do you think it would be a good addition to this entry? If so, please, someone, add it in!

Thanks!

No, there will be no section about orchid care. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and 8. Instruction manuals. --BerndH 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to describe orchid care, but it is not encyclopedic information. You will find many other fine sources for this information. Snafflekid 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]