By the same token, that which we called a Caladenia should be just as attractive whatever we
called it.

So what's in a name? A lot's in a name is what. We place great emotional stock in the familiarity of our own names, and we resist change. So it is with our other familiars, and among our familiars are our orchids.

But name changes for orchids have always been with us. Dan Hatch wrote, "You say people are objecting to the new generic names - how far back do you want to go? To George Forster in 1786 and Epidendrum autumnale? Or Forster's Ophrys unifolia in the same paper?" [J91 p26].

Our Group has lost a dozen members this year. We usually lose and gain 3 or 4, but this has been the biggest loss (actually the only nett loss) since I have been involved. One departing member wrote, "It's all getting too complicated".

Taxonomists are good at names; many of the rest of us are not; we have had to struggle to learn the complexities of the Linnaean Latin constructions, and now that we have, we do not take kindly to new ones.

Of late there certainly have been plenty of new ones - our cherished Caladenia, Corybas and Pterostylis have all endured upheaval, and there are others, and more on the way.

But just because a name has been published does not mean we have to use it. There is no obligation or compunction for us to use the new names. We have done so because the reasoning of those advancing the new names seemed sound, and we thought we were moving with the times.

But few of the editors of other ANOS-affiliated societies have adopted the new names. Several Australian herbaria have not adopted them, and argument is raging among botanists across the Tasman as to how best to manage the "competing classifications". These are the professionals, and they are unable yet to give the amateurs consistent guidance.

Now Hopper and Brown have published on the subject [1 -see "Australian notes" this issue] reducing most of the new genera in the Caladenia alliance to subgenus rank, retaining the name Caladenia for the majority, including the New Zealand species in Petalochilus and Stegostyla.

A further paper [2] suggests a similar treatment for Pterostylis and alerts readers to a planned paper detailing the reasons. The authors concluded, "There are no formal taxonomic hindrances to orchidologists retaining use of broad concepts of Caladenia, Pterostylis and other Australian genera if this is preferred over the recent description of narrowly circumscribed genera.... we recommend retaining broad concepts that uphold monophyly as the best approach to dealing with this extraordinary, complex and challenging situation...".

A conservative approach does seem wise. Our adoption of the new generic names in the NZ Native Orchid Journal may have been hasty, and to promote discussion I will propose at the NZNOG AGM in December that the Journal reverts to using the generic names Caladenia and Pterostylis for NZ species in those alliances. The situation with Corybas and Nematoceras is a little different, and I would propose to keep the new names in Corybas in the meantime.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?