"Anacamptis coriophora", the bug orchid, is a species of orchid, found in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East to Iran.
Similar species: Agaves, Aloes, Onions
Uploaded Dec 14, 2018. Captured May 21, 2010 08:47 in Vico I Nazionale, 1B, 08030 Nurallao CA, Italy.
comments (10)
Basically, us French people, the Belgians, the Italians, the Germans to a lesser extent and others generally follow (though sometimes with reluctance, and not always in complete agreement between countries) a bunch of taxonomists, some of whom are rabid splitters. For example, at present, these people recognize over 200 species in the genus Ophrys. (see this website to give you an idea: http://www.orchidsofbritainandeuropetest.uk/Genus%20Ophrys.html)
And on the other hand, we have some others, who are at the other end of the spectrum and lump all of these together into a handful of ultra-variable and very widespread species. Some things they accept as distinct subspecies, and but a lot they completely sink into synonymy. And this is often what is reflected by the ITIS...
Now I'm obviously no taxonomist, and especially with orchids, I would never claim that something is an undoubtedly good "species". But I've seen a fair number of them, for example some of the taxa that are endemic to Sicily and Sardinia, and a lot of them appear to me to be distinct enough to warrant some sort of recognition.
Most of what I'm talking about concerns the genus Ophrys. But this is another example. Technically, this photo pertains to a taxon called Anacamptis fragrans. In fairness, it is quite similar to Anacamptis coriophora, and some call it a subspecies, which I would have been happy to do, but the ITIS only considers it a synonym of coriophora. So that's what I identified it as, but I'd like to have your opinion on that whole deal, and what I should do for the other photos I haven't uploaded yet.
Thanks (and I hope that wasn't too wordy and convoluted, please let me know if you want me to rephrase). Posted 5 years ago
The problem is that when Wikipedia is not consistent, you end up having to do lots of maintenance for each new species added, because new species are often created using the Wikipedia taxonomy. Posted 5 years ago
But you've answered my question, I'll stick rigorously to the ITIS, and maybe just put something in the comments of my photos about what splitters might calle them. Posted 5 years ago
Are you generally a lumper or a splitter? Posted 5 years ago
Another argument that's often offered by the splitters is that a lot of their species might look alike, but in fact each one has a different, specialized, pollinator. Now that's fair, and I have very little personal experience to bring to bear, and yet I have a sneaky suspicion that not enough time has been spent with each "species" to guarantee that indeed it is only pollinated by one insect species. (And even they happily describe hybrids including their species as parents, which kind of undermines the specialized pollinator hypothesis!!)
But I happen to know personally two serious French authorities on the genus Ophrys, and they accept a lot of these species, so I often followed their lead, even if I usually was unable to match their identification skills. Posted 5 years ago, modified 5 years ago
So she argues for a combination of genetics, morphological and pollination studies (looking at specific floral scents and pollinator species), but of course that has yet to be done at the scale of the genus... Posted 5 years ago