Talk:Phalaenopsis

Comments
"Hemicr. or cham." on the species list - could this be explained, or removed! - MPF 7 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)
 * These abbreviations refer to the terminology of particular lifeforms of plants :


 * hemicryptophyte (abbr.: hemicr.) : plants with herbaceous stems. These stems die off after the growing season, while the shoots survive at soil level (e.g. : Aster)
 * chamaephyte (abbr. cham.) : plants with herbaceous and/or woody stems, that persist for several years. Their buds are on soil level or just above; but never above 50 cm (e.g. : Alyssum).

This terminology is to be found at World checklist of Monocotyledons - Kew JoJan 7 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)


 * Thanks; maybe (since all seem to be the same in the genus) the terms could be moved from the species list to the paragraph describing the genus? - MPF 7 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)
 * Done JoJan 7 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Are the terms hemicryptophyte and chamaephyte at all appropriate for these tropical evergreen epiphytic orchids? The terms seem to refer to deciduous terrestrial plants of the temperate zone, and to distinguish where, relative to the "soil level," live buds persist after much of the plant has died back in winter. Jay L09 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

a species?
Hello! I took a lot of pictures from my home province in the Philippines. Many of the plants I could not name or classify. An example is here. I could not identify. but might very well me Phalaenopsis. There are more images in my user page. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is definitely a Phalaenopsis. But unless you know the pedigree of this particular plant, do not try to tag it with a species name or hybrid name. Just label it as an unknown variety of Phalaenopsis. --Michaelzheng 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is a Phalaenopsis amabilis. Conan Wolff (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Pinay (talk•email) 01:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Period of blooming
Thanks for this interesting article. I note "They bloom in their full glory for several weeks. If kept in the home, they usually last two to three months, which is considered quite a long time." Our white Phal has been in bloom, in the bathroom, since July 2006! === Vernon White (talk)  12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis / etymology
Dear Sirs,

Subject: the Wikipedia entry in English of Phalaenopsis / Description

It is stated in the above entry that the word "Phalaenopsis" originates from Greek words "phalaina" and "opsis" as is certainly true. But the meaning and translation of the word "phalaina" into "moth" caught my eye. You can easily verify in any good dictionary that "phalaina" means "whale" in English and this is so both in ancient and modern Greek language. Could you perhaps explain what has led to your kind of interpretation of this word? Helsinki, Finland June 4, 2007

Mr. Antti Stenberg antti.stenberg@welho.com 82.181.115.37 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick search gave the following :
 * Merrian-Webster online : Etymology: New Latin, from Greek phalaina moth + -opsis
 * Dictionary.com : [Origin: < NL (1825), equiv. to Gk phál(l)ain(a) moth + -opsis -opsis; reflecting the popular name moth orchid]
 * In wikipedia we only refer to existing and reliable sources. Doing otherwise would be contrary to the offical guidelines of No original research. JoJan 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

As to the semantics and translation of the greek word I refer to the dictionary of: A Lexicon Abridged from Liddel and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon Oxford at the Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press Impression of 1991 Printed in Great Britain

which is largely accepted as an authoritative source of the vocabulary of classical Greek. I refer to my extract from a.m. dictionary: page 750, column II: quote falaina, he, a whale, Lat. balaena: hence of a devouring monster. enquote (he = the greek eta, the definite article) quote fallaina, he, = falaina. enquote If needed, I can give ref/s to a modern Greek dictionary with a similar content of the same.

I dare to doubt the reliability of your a.m. reference and propose you consult a professional expert on Greek language. I myself am just a amateur of 30 years but have seen errors even in very goods dictionaries in etymologies and Greek words.

Yours sincerely Antti Stenberg


 * You're probably right, but I have no Greek dictionary at my disposal. The Latin word balaena, however, is used in the names of baleen whale families Balaenidae and Balaenopteridae. However, in 1825 when Carl Blume named the genus Phalaenopsis, he must have explained the etymology of the name of the genus in his "Bijdragen tot de Flora van Nederlandsch-Indië", issue 294. If there was a mistake, that's where it must have happened. And we must accept this, as Phalaenopsis is a valid publication under the rules of ICBN. And now we can hardly change the English common name "moth orchid" into "baleen whale orchid", can we ? But, if you want, you can add this confusion of terms into the article. JoJan 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this should first be checked in Stearn's Botanical Latin, not in a Greek dictionary, no matter how expert, as Botanical Latin, unlike the Classical Greek and Latin it is derived from, is a living language. So, if someone would reference Stearn's, as my copy is not handy, let's start there.  KP Botany 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like many early botanists Blume did not explain the etymology of the new name (for future reference, Tropicos now has links to scans of the original publications for many genera and species). But bear in mind that many botanical names are not directly derived so the literal translation from Greek or Latin is often interesting but not necessarily helpful. MrDarwin 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Phalaenoptilus also uses "phalaina" as in moth, as does Dendrobium phalaenopsis (in the latter case, the derivation isn't mentioned in the article; take my word for it.) These were named by Audobon and Lindley respectively, so we now have three botanists that think "phalaina" means "moth". I plugged "phalaina moth whale" into google, and came up with this rather unattractive page, which gives the following definition: "phalaina φαλαινα a whale; a moth". I don't think we have anything much to worry about here. Hesperian 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This interesting case has been discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Conclusion : the word "Phalaena" had already been used in 1758 by Linnaeus to indicate one of the divisions of Lepidoptera, as indicated in the article old Linnaean taxonomic division. Blume must have followed Linnaeus in this respect. JoJan 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with JoJan's assessment, although I've rewritten the text to (hopefully) clarify and streamline it a bit. "Phalaena" means moth, not literally, but because Linnaeus used it as a name for moths.  Of course we still don't know why Linnaeus used "Phalaena" to refer to a group of moths, but that's another article entirely... MrDarwin 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs:

As has been stated before, "Phalaenopsis" seems to have been used by Linnaeus to categorize moths, although the reason is not very clear. It is now, however, an obsolete category, though this does not matter to us much. What is interesting is that, when you look into the etymology of "Phalaena" from which "Phalaenopsis" is derived, and trace its roots through time and Indo-european languages, it would seem like the whale is the more correct sense of the word, although in a roundabout way. See the following link with its references:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek.

It would seem that a whale was named as it was in the Greek (and related/older languages) because of how it blows, how it shoots things out of itself. This word was originally related to the word used for how plants bloom. The whale blows water, the plants bloom their flowers. It is possible that Linnaeus named the moths as he did because of their appearance, or it could be that they were larger moths, and thus he called them "whale-ish moths", much like the term "whale" could be a derogatory reference to an overweight person in our own time and language. I have no intention of saying that this was definitively why he named the moths as he did, but the linguistic evidence supports that the meaning of the word indicates something sent out or shown forth from an origin, whether visible or not. And it is also supported by the aforementioned article that there was a metaphorical sense to the word, thus opening the possibility that Linnaeus used it metaphorically when he named the moths.

Thus we have some sense of the "Phalaena" piece of the word. The plant blossoms, thus manifesting its inner potential and beauty; and the whale blows, thus showing the contents that lay within it. It is also relevant that the suffix "-opsis", or rather the Greek word "opsis", is a word entirely caught up in the visual, i.e. something's appearance, especially as it was used in the theatre and plays, even in ancient times. See the following articles for references:

1) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-opsis

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opsis

Opsis is a highly visual word, so to combine the two together as "Phalaenopsis" seems to indicate some thing that visually shows itself forth, like a plant developing blossoms and showing them to any who care to look. As for why this particular orchid species or plant species has been named this, I have nothing to add except the subjective. As well as the blossoms that come forth from the plant, the entire plant's structure seems to follow the pattern of "shooting out from an origin".

In the first place, the center or core of the plant grows vertically. From this one core, the leaves shoot out radially, the roots shoot out likewise from this core radially, although they are more varied in shape and direction. The stem too shoots from the core, into its preferred direction. Thus the plant seems to exemplify the sense of the word "Phalaenopsis": this one plant has roots, leaves, and stem/flowers that shoot forth from the core, and the core shoots forth from itself along its axis.

2605:A601:A81A:4000:D92B:BE31:11D4:831A (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Linguist Pat

photosynthetic?
From the article: "Post-pollination changes in Phalaenopsis orchids - Phalaenopsis are not only outstanding in their beauty, but also unique in their photosynthetic mechanism. " This must be a mistake; it is not explained anyway - at least not very clearly. 82.92.245.109 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given a bit more information + reference. JoJan (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terribly contradictory
The following paragraph seems terribly contradictory. I have removed it from section "Intergeneric hybrids" and placed it here, if anyone wants to try to salvage the concept that true representatives of the nothogenus Phalphalaenopsis somehow do not exist:
 * There is no true intergeneric hybrid between Phalaenopsis and the closely related Paraphalaenopsis. However, according to the RHS, the grex Phalphalaenopsis Doris Thornton, registered in 1977 as a cross between Paraphalaenopsis x thorntonii and Phalaenopsis Doris is just such a hybrid. Therefore, strictly speaking, the genetic barrier between these two closely related genera has not been crossed. But, since there are only very few true Phalaenopsis species in cultivation (most are hybrids), the possibility of a true intergeneric hybrid is not to be excluded.

I have also added Phalphalaenopsis to the list of nothogenera. Jay L09 (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming and Cultivar Epithet Inconsistencies
Note in the Wikipedia article for Cultivar:

"The cultivar epithet is capitalised and enclosed by single quotes; it should not be italicized."

Many of the images in this article not only ignore this rule, but seem to have little regard for context. Is Phalaenopsis cultivars a species? Example "Pink Phalaenopsis (Moth) Orchids" doesn't italicize the genus name, feels the need to have "(Moth)" where it isn't needed, and mistakes the number of plants in the picture.

An otherwise credible article looks positively shoddy when the attached images appear to follow a schizophrenic author's stream of consciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spontaneous Symmetry (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Trigger conditions for flowering
The article presents two views about the conditions required for flowering. I've put the sentences these two views into the same paragraph, for neatness, but I think it wouldn't harm the article to just present the summary of the Blancard + Runkle paper -- something like:

"Phalaenopsis will produce the greatest number of flowers with an average daily temperature of between 15C and 18C. Temperatures above 28C will inhibit flowering completely.  It was previously believed that a night-time temperature drop was necessary for flowering, but this is not the case". AndrewBolt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Reproduction?
There is no section on how these plants are pollinated... 75.84.172.85 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added such a section. Conan Wolff (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Botany? Or 'trade'?
In the opening paragraph is the phrase:

"Phalaenopsis is one of the most popular orchids in the trade"

What is "the trade" to which the contributor refers, and what has a "trade" to do with the summary definition of a species of orchid in an encyclopaedia? If this web site were for "traders in botanical specimens" the context would make some sense, but this is an article about plants, not about trading.

Or are we to assume that because Wikipedia is USian in origin and style all the information it contains must be seen within the context of buying, selling, money, a capitalist outlook on life, etc? Who was the person who so wisely and wittily said: "Americans [sic] know the price of everything and the value of nothing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.241 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ecology
Is it just me or does the ecology section have absolutely nothing to do with the ecology of these plants? If anything, it is plant physiology and feels very detached from the rest of the text. I suggest the section either be completely removed or moved to some other section of the article.

Unless someone complains, I will remove the section.

MrKimm Master of ecology 2014-08-22

I also thought that section was odd. Maybe it should just be renamed to phytochemistry instead of removing it. I added a bit to the pollination. That could be the ecology section. Conan Wolff (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Choice of images in the articles
I suggest the images shown in the article should be more representative for the genus. In other words instead of including several images of complex hybrids, which are primarily composed of subgenus Phalaenopsis, the images could be chosen to represent the other subgenera (Proboscidioides, Aphyllae, Polychilos, Parishianae). Conan Wolff (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also suggest that since this article is viewed more than 300 times per day, the principal image should not be changed without discussion here. Gderrin (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Annual/perennial?
I came to this article to learn if my orchid is an annual or a perennial, but this information was not available. Could this be fixed, please? Thank you! 98.97.34.38 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * All orchids are perennial plants. Gderrin (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Orchid
How do you take care of it 2601:18D:8C7F:B600:9425:6B2:6F71:FF9F (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)