Talk:Orchid/Archive 1

Archive 1

pollen sacks

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 --Stup1dity 06:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Headline text

Plants are not that different.

rotting flesh

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.

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)

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)

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 [[1]]), even if these hybrids are mostly coloured blue. On the other hand, this picture of a Phalaenopsis sp. [[2]] 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)

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)

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)

A few months ago I created a wiki for the purpose of collecting culture and care information on terrestrial orchids. Everybody is welcome to contribute. I don't know if it's appropriate to put this kind of links in discussion pages, but here goes: this is the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.142.109 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox testicle ice cream?

Is this a joke?

---

Or am I just freaked out.I mean i think you got this all wrong.--58.168.52.71 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok. Does the word orchid really come from a word meaning testicle? Seriously? o.0 --Stup1dity 06:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See Orchis --BerndH 09:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Orchid

I know nothing of orchids, but came seeking a picture of a Ghost Orchid as a result of the recent find in Florida, No picture thou.

So a long story short: These were released for use on Wikipedi by:

Ghost Orchid

Mick Fournier HBI, Producers of Fine Orchids in Flask POB 2172 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061

Hopefully copyright guidelines were followed. Awesome photos so don't let the Wiki police delete them, they have been cleared by the author for your use. --Random Replicator 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Orchids

Philippine Contribution to Orchidology

The Philippines has contributed the most number of orchid species in Asia to the world for breeding, cutflower and other uses. Euanthe sanderiana, also known as Vanda sanderiana was originally named by Heinrich G. Reichenbach in 1822 in the Gardener’s Chronicle in honour of Henry F. Sander, the famous nurseryman and patron of orchids, of St. Albans, England, UK who said that this species was “the greatest novelty ever introduced to Europe (in the 1900s)”. Dr. Rudolf Schlechter created the generic name “Euanthe” in 1914 in Die Orchideen. Euanthe sanderiana became the parent of innumerable award-winning hybrid and line bred progenies since the time it was discovered. There are petitions from several Philippine plant societies, advocates, organisations and other groups to make Euanthe sanderiana the national flower of the Republic of the Philippines owing to its importance, origin and endemism instead of the current Jasminum sambac which is a native of the Indian subcontinent.

Phalaenopsis amabilis, the type specimen for the genus Phalaenopsis (in fact the lagest flowered species in its genus) and Phalaenopsis aphrodite, two indigenous orchids of the Philippines, are the basis for the big, showy, almost plate-size flowered hybrids. Phalaenopsis fasciata, endemic to the Philippines, has been used in hybridisation to produce flowers with a dark-yellow colouring. The lovely “candy-stripe” hybrids are a strong trait inherited from the miniature-flowered Philippine endemic Phalaenopsis lindenii while long-lasting flowers are a desirable inheritance of Phalaenopsis pulchra’s hybrids, again a Philippine endemic. Purple, violet, or dark pink colouration are traits of Phalaenopis stuartiana and Phalaneopsis sanderiana both Philipine endemics. The Philippines and Indonesia are the centre of distribution of the genus Phalaenopsis as well as the genus Vanda, while the genera Dendrochilum and Staurochilus has their centre of distribution in the Philippines.

Dendrobium anosmum, an indigenous succulent orchid, has an endemic cultivar form called ‘Superbum’ which has the largest flowers of this species and indeed the largest flowered species in the genus Dendrobium. Contrary to its specific name, the flowers are very fragrant and could be used in perfumery. Dendrobium crumenatum, found from Myanmar to Timor and the Philippines, is the most commonly seen orchid in Philippine household gardens as well as used for earache and ear infections. It is also fragrant but not like D. anosmum, it will only flower shortly upon an impending storm.

Renanthera storei and Renanthera philippinensis, both endemic and locally known as “fire orchids” have been extensively hybridised with other vandaceous genera.

Almost all vandaceous hybrids with strap-like leaves can trace their origins from just five species: Vanda coerulea of the Himalayas, China, Myanmar and Thailand; Vanda tricolor of Indonesia; Vanda dearei; Vanda luzonica and Euanthe sanderiana both from the Philippines. Orchid shows and exhibits in the Philippines are yearly staged during the onset of blooms of Euanthe sanderiana (August to September) and Dendrobium anosmum (February to March). While the largest Philippine flora exhibit-the Flora Filipina-is held at the height of the general flowering season in the country-during the months of January and February.

Cultivated Phalaenopsis lindenii

A few of the most common orchids found in "casual" culture are:

Anguloa Cattleya Cymbidium Laelia Dendrobium Phalaenopsis Paphiopedilum Oncidium

Vanda Epidendrum Brassia Bulbophyllum Catasetum Sophronitis Miltonia Phaius

The Taiwan Orchid Nursery in Pingtung, Taiwan, and the National Orchid Garden in the Singapore Botanic Gardens are considered by some to be among the finest collections of orchids in cultivation open to the public.

Orchids, like tulips, have become a major market throughout the world. Buyers now bid hundreds of dollars on new or improved hybrids. Because of their apparent ease in hybridization, they are now becoming one of the most popular cut-flowers on the market. Trade shows such as the Taiwan International Orchid Show attracted more than 200,000 visitors and 3,000 foreign floral exports and buyers from abroad. As such, some governments, including the Taiwanese, consider orchid plantation as a high-tech industry and invest in science parks like the Taiwan Orchid Plantation in Tainan County (台灣蘭花科技園區). Taiwan is the biggest exporter of orchids, with Thailand coming second.

References

subfamilies

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)

pictures

I uploaded some pictures I took.

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid

Orchid?

Orchid?

Not an Orchid

Kowloonese 09:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian Bamboo Orchid

Hawaiian Bamboo Orchid

lily

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 [3] 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 [[4]] 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 [[5]]. 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., [[6]], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's currently written in the "Appearance and Structure" section is wrong. Myco-heterotroph orchids don't have an ectomycorrhizal relationship. They have a normal orchid mycorrhizal relationhsip but the fungi involved also has an ectomycorrhizal relationship with a nearby plant, normally a tree. The orchid receives carbon by digesting the fungus which has received this carbon from the tree in a mutualistic relationship. The orchid is therefore an epi-parasite on the tree. As far as I know there aren't any myco-heterotroph orchids that are dependent on "soil fungi" that get their nutrients from leaf litter. They are always mycorrhizal fungi rather than soil fungi. See New Phytologist 127: 171–216 and New Phytologist 167: 335–352. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thailand

I removed the sentence about Thailand being the leading country in the orchid buying world and having the only pure white orchid. There is no citation, and anyone with any experience in the orchid world knows there are a multitude of pure white orchids from various continents. --Eric in SF 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the column lacking

As you can see in my user page I collect plants. I recently picked up Orchis maculata, which is fairly common here. I've had a very bad time trying to understand what the different parts of the column were and where they were. This article wasn't very helpful and I only started to understand the flower's "geography" when I managed to extract a pollinium with a pencil. Now, I know Wikipedia is not a guide for amateur botanists, but a detailed, frontal picture of the column would be very, very useful to explain the part about the flower. I'm sure that there are many users who have orchids as houseplants. Could somebody with a good camera take some detailed pictures of the reproductive structures, upload them and tell me? I will be glad to add the necessary labels. Please, do so. Aelwyn 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dactylorhiza maculata, of course.

Better pictures are always welcome. But did you look at Column (botany) ? JoJan 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added that image JoJan. Yes, Aelwyn, the article does need the image. KP Botany 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That picture is really a good one, but it still doesn't help very much if the question is What do I see when I look inside an ochid flower? It's more complicated than it looks. If only I had a decent camera I would upload a picture myself, like I did with Poaceae and Fabaceae, but unfortunately I only have a 2Mpx no-macro device. Aelwyn 07:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, you're demanding--and I knew you'd say that. Noah's not currently available for an orchid picture, he's the best bet for dissection pictures. I'll see if I can find someone to cut up an orchid for you. KP Botany 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I managed to get a decent picture from my girlfriend, which I think is enough for what I want to do. I'll upload it soon. Sorry if I always tend to be too demanding. Aelwyn 08:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. Not very beautifull, indeed. Typo in title, it's Dacylorhiza sambucina. Aelwyn 09:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It´s Dactylorhiza sambucina --BerndH 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My book still lists it in the genus Orchis. Thx for the note. Aelwyn 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Orchid or not?

Orchid or not?

Hey guys, I recently took this photo of some flowers and I didn't know what kind they are. Is it an orchid? And if it is does anybody know the scienfitic name for it? Thanks, Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an orchid. Perhaps some Palaenopsis? I don't know. Aelwyn 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's some sort of Vanda coerulea142.68.44.16 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request identification

Orchid experts, please identify?

I've released one of the orchid shots I took at the Singapore botanical gardens for GDFL licensure. It's attractive but I don't know the species. Would appreciate identification and inclusion at the appropriate species page. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Dendrobium to me. VanTucky ^Talk 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a Dendrobium. Should be a Cattleya --Toapel (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a species, more likely a hubrid of the peloric ("splash-petal") form of Cattleya intermedia with one of the spotted bifoliate species--maybe C. aclandiae?--Jacumba (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision

This page has definitely become too messy. I'm making a complete revision following the scheme I have adopted since I edited Ranunculaceae and Geraniaceae. I'll be glad to get any feedback. Aelwyn 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. It's time to make a reassessment. This should at least be a "B "instead of "Start". JoJan 14:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After some work it could even become a good article, good info is not lacking. Aelwyn 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the work is done, I think. Gallery needs to be expanded, finding amazing pictures won't be a problem with so much beauty around, but I wonder whether finding 'scientific' images will be that easy! If you could review the article (and possibly copyedit) and point out how it could be further improved, I'd be very, very glad. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, thanks! Aelwyn 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been monitoring your changes. Again, it's a fine job. I put some of the texts, that you've removed in this article, into the articles of the genera described. The content was indeed too specific to be included in a general article on the family. One last point, I prefer the Vanilla drawing in the gallery to be put back into its proper place in the article, since it gives a good explanation of the parts of an orchid. JoJan 17:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure, that picture is to be moved back. Only I had had many visualisation problems with it, so I temporarily moved it to the gallery, but was already my intention to move it back. Aelwyn 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll translate Ecologia, Cultivo and Produção from portuguese and also something from German. It will be fun! Aelwyn 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) PS: And it will make me fail the Environmental law examination I'm going to take Wednesday. I'm no wikipediholic. I could give it up whenever I want to.

Largest family ?

Orchid and Aster family pages both say they are the largest plant family. What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.94.91 (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated last year in Talk:Asteraceae#Second_largest_family ? JoJan (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Image wanted

Ophrys speculum

For mimicry, I'd like to find an image of an orchid that attracts insects via deceptive signals. Anybody know of one? I've had a look at Commons but I can't spot anything. There must be one somewhere. Richard001 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at Ophrys ? JoJan 07:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have Ophrys as an example in the article. A picture of Ophrys insectifera (i.e. having an insect, because it looks like one), conveniently enough, was put in the image gallery. Aelwyn 07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But, personal opinion, the orchid which is the most similar to an insect is Ophrys speculum (on the left).

When I started contributing to this article in August 2004, the length of the article was short and the number of photos available was even shorter. Luckily by now we have a much larger pool of photos to choose from. Ophrys insectifera or Ophrys speculum are both fine examples of mimicry. To really appreciate this mimicry, we should try to see it as the insect experiences it : (most probably) in UV-light (so that it highlights the labellum) and smelling a female of its own species. Sadly enough this can't be done, and we have to do with a photo in normal light. So, if you want to insert the Ophrys speculum photo, go ahead. No problem on my part. JoJan 08:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't searched very well for this one. Thanks for the suggestions. Some of these should definitely be included in the Commons category on mimicry. Richard001 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You could also try Brassia (there is a really good image in Commons). This orchid has flowers that resemble spiders. It is pollinated by spider-hunting wasps that mistake the flowers for prey. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Orchid and Aster family pages both say they are the largest plant family. What's up with this?

Merge Botanical orchids

The article on Botanical orchids is essentially a definition, and is unlikely to ever grow larger. I suggest merging it into this article, the primary one on orchids. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Aelwyn 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, and nice catch Petey. VanTucky ^Talk 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging it here sounds fine, although I'm sure there will at some point be enough material on related topics (not just this one term) to think about an article like orchid growing, orchid horticulture or something of the sort (into which American Orchid Society and probably a bunch of others might be merged, or linked from). Kingdon 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I'm just surprised there isn't a WikiProject yet for orchids. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged contents of Botanical orchids and converted to redirect. --EncycloPetey 11:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine Aelwyn 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

cultural aspects

The cultural aspects of orchid use should be examined.

see four gentlemen. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Request identification

G'day I was after an identification of this orchid from the tasmanian botanical gardens, unfortunately it was untagged but I think it's a species of Cymbidium, probably a cultivar, any help would be greatly appreciated. Flying Freddy (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Orchids are one of the most liked flowers for weddings and other eligant events —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.161.9 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

in popular culture?

shouldnt there be a section for orchids in popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.5.201 (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Section removal

I removed this section for a number of reasons, firstly its unsourced secondly it raises POV and advertising concerns and it doesnt contribute to the understanding of the plant. I placed it below if someone choose to use it for the basis of an article on Orchids of the Philippines similar to say Orchids of Western Australia Gnangarra 01:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Flowers

This sentence looks as if something has gone awry with it: "In the other subfamilies, that comprise the great majority of orchids, the anther (3), carries and two pollinia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawright12 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Orchis - "testicle" or Greek myth

The etymology section cites two separate origins of the word "orchid" but doesn't offer citations that reconcile the difference between the two. The Orchis story seems most suspect but it's sentence structure is very declarative: "The Greek myth of Orchis explains the origin of the plants." How could this be possible if the plants were named in the 1700s? Is the link between órkhis and Orchis coincidental? Did the myth predate the scientific terming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.119.236 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fake Greek myth:I've commented out the fake "myth" of a supposed "Orchis". It should be deleted, unless someone can find a printed reference.--Wetman (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly can't find any evidence in any of the books about plant names that I have, so I've removed the commented out text accordingly. I can find a reliable source for "orchid" being a back-derivation from "Orchidaceae", but not for the first person to do this being Lindley, so I've left a "citation needed". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

a missing word produces babble

"Orchids without noticeable pseudobulbs are also said to have [ ] growths, an individual component of a sympodial plant." Can a more competent editor than I fill in the apparently missing word that would render this statement sensible?--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How do orchids get their nutrition?

Should we have a subsection on orchids as mixotrophs? Under Stem and roots, the article contains this unsourced statement: "Nutrients for epiphytic orchids mainly come from mineral dust, organic detritus, animal droppings and other collecting among on their supporting surfaces." This is a fascinating aspect of orchid biology, evolution, heterotrophic nutrition, and mycorrhiza not discussed in the article. I am not experienced in the science and found no satisfactory synthetic reviews in a preliminary web search. May require some collaborative, iterative work. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)