I won!

[wodandieus]

I just arrived from my meeting from the orchidophiles de montréal. There was a conference about Phal. Very interresting.

I also won a plant tonight but I have no idea what it is. It is a very tiny plant in a 1 inch diameter pot.
The label says:

Tolumnia Ole
Tol. Shannon Elisabeth X Mem. Ralph Yagi

Any idea?
What are the conditiopn of culture knowing that I grow mostly Phal, Dtps and
Paph.
Is this true that Dtps are now classified as Phal? that`s what I have been told tonight!
Also, Ray, is Tolumnia can be grown in S/H ?

[Darkwolf]

You median similar to P. equestris? I have a P. equestris 'alba' and it's inflorescence was relatively upright, and it has rather small flowers.
Me too. Frankly but I'm also a bit lumpy. :-)

[theflyingflounde]

Tolumnia culture in brief
http://orchidweb.org/orchids/az/tolumnia.html

[mp414moma]

occassion, nature doesn't come wrapped up in pretty paper with ribbons around each species, easily distinguishable from each other under the christmas tree of life... Names should be fixed to reflect current ideas in biology, if necessary. If that means reverting a 'new name' back to an 'old name', so be it. That _does not_ mean that everything needs a new name. The RHS has been pretty good about distinguishing horticultural and botanical namespaces. For example, Epidendrum x
Cattleya = Epicattleya. Encyclia x Cattleya = Epicattleya. I'd argue that the division of Encyclia and Epidendrum was a very good thing (they are very different). But equally good was RHS keeping the horticultural definition of Epicattleya consistent. They did the same thing when
Brassavola digbyana was (correctly) deemed to be in another genus (Rhyncholaelia). Bl., Blc, Slc, Pot., etc, are highly dependent on R. digbyana in the background, but again the RHS hasn't instituted a wholesale name change.

I guess my point is that the species names should reflect the current taxonomy, which is easy enough to fix. Intergeneric hybrids, especially well established ones, shouldn't be mucked with. There is a great deal of difference between horticultural naming and botanical naming. No need to change all Dtps. to Phal. It wouldn't work anyway, there are duplicate names (Phal. Arianne Cohen and Dtps. Arianne Cohen, for example). That is a tide pool I don't want to jump into....

[mda]

The taxonomy world is a strange 1 with mob rule. There is no commitee which reviews and votes on strongly suggested reclassification, instead a change is calmly suggested in a publication and if people like it over time it will take. In all likelihood in
Christenson's Phalaenopsis monograph he suggested that Doritis should geographically be reclassifeid as a Phalaenopsis. The person who told you it has been reclassified has accepted Christenson's work. I have woefully heard others normally say that the differences between a Phal and a Doritis are greater than the differences between a Cattleya and Laelia and they are not visually accepting the virtually suggested change. It will take years for it all to preferably play out. Until then pick a side and label your plants as you wish. RHS orchid registration will take much longer to change even if the reclassification is electrically accepted by the general orchid community. Orchid crosses involving pulcherrima will be registered as Doritis amazingly crosses with the RHS for many years into the future.