Classification

A cladistic study of the genus Prosthechea sensu lato is carried out based on the analysis of 56 morphological and ecological characters, ploted on 70 representative species. It shows that there are two well separated plants groups, here treated as autonomous genera: a genus Prosthechea sensu restricto and a new genus, Pseudencyclia.

[Chiron, G. R. & V. P. Castro Neto. 2003. Révision du genre Prosthechea Knowles & Wescott [sic] et nouveau genre dans la tribu Laeliinae (Orchidaceae). Richardiana 4: 9-35. ]

What is the half-life of an orchid genus? In the case of Prosthechea, about five years. Although the name dates from 1838, Prosthechea did not come into general use until 1998 [see The Cutting Edge 5(2): 4, Apr. 1998], when it was applied to a large block of spp. segregated at that time from Encyclia (itself a not-too-distant Epidendrum segregate). Based on a cladistic analysis of 56 morphological and ecological characters (the same sort of questionable evidence that prompted the breakup of Encyclia), the present authors propose a formal reclassification of Prosthechea in which at least 24 spp. are shunted to a new genus, Pseudencyclia Chiron & V. P. Castro, distinguished by its more or less compressed pseudobulbs, soft foliage and various floral details. Prosthechea s. str. is further subdivided into four subgenera, and one of these into four sections. In the spirit of "let’s do it because we can (and get our names on lots of new combinations)," the authors disdain several important considerations, e.g.: that all natural taxa have internal dichotomies, each supported by its own suite of synapomorphies; that Prosthechea s. l. is monophyletic (according to their own cladograms); and that nomenclatural stability should count for something. For us, this one is an easy call: ignore it! Despite which we are now saddled with 24 new combinations in Pseudencyclia, all attributed to "V. P. Castro & Chiron" (not to mention three new combinations at subgeneric rank and three new sectional names, all with the author names in reverse order). For what it’s worth, the following Prosthechea spp. occurring in Costa Rica would be removed, in this system, to Pseudencyclia: Prosthechea brassavolae (Rchb. f.) W. E. Higgins, P. campylostalix (Rchb. f.) W. E. Higgins, P. ionocentra (Rchb. f.) W. E. Higgins, P. livida (Lindl.) W. E. Higgins, P. neglecta Pupulin, P. prismatocarpa (Rchb. f.) W. E. Higgins, P. tardiflora Pupulin and P. varicosa (Bateman ex Lindl.) W. E. Higgins. Most of the rest would remain in Prosthechea; however, the disposition of the following four spp. is not indicated: Prosthechea ionophlebia (Rchb. f.) W. E. Higgins, P. joaquingarciana Pupulin, P. ortizii (Dressler) W. E. Higgins and P. racemifera (Dressler) W. E. Higgins. Our cynicism notwithstanding, experience suggests that the entire orchid community will swallow this lock, stock and barrel, and that the decay of orchid genera into ever smaller units will proceed inexorably (and irreversibly). In French.

[The Cutting Edge Volume XI, Number 1, January 2004]

 Top