When this article was first created, I attempted to link it to the Laelia page, as that page has a fairly comprehensive list of the species in that genus. However, there is no listing for the Laelia crispa at the Laelia page. There is a Schomburgkia crispa and its alba variant, and there is a Cattleya crispa which is noted as an invalid name, but there is no Laelia crispa. I brought this to the attention of the original author (Wwm101 (talk · contribs)), who apparently agreed with me that this article might have been created in error and proposed the article for deletion. A second editor (B.Wind (talk · contribs)) apparentl[y disagrees based on a Google search that produces 14,000 hits. However, according to this source, the name Laelia crispa is "not accepted", but rather is an alternative name for the Cattleya crispa. Not being a botanist, I have no way of knowing where to go with this page. I hope that knowledgeable botanists can help sort this out. If my reading of the sources is correct, the proper solution is to redirect this page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sources disagree on the separation of Genera Schomburgkia and Laelia. My sole position on this is that if it is a commonly-used name, it needs (at least) a redirect to the most commonly used name (and no, I won't get involved with that brouhaha as naming of orchid species and genera is quite fluid - see the changes over the past couple of decades involving current and former members of Epidendrum) is desired. Clearly deletion is not merited. If there were a WP:WikiProject Orchids, I'd urge a discussion within it as to how to standardize the names, but there isn't one - and there should be as there are multiple standards throughout the orchid industry itself. B.Wind (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This paper has Schomburgkia crispa and Laelia crispa as different species. Laelia is polyphyletic, which confuses the matter. To confuse the issue further Tropicos has Schomburgkia crispa and Laelia crispa as the same plant. The type of Laelia is Laelia speciosa. This is part of the "Mexican Laelia alliance". Going by the paper is seems that it's worth keeping Schomburgkia (with some more species transferrred from Laelia). But this article is referring to a Brasilian plant, which seesm to part of the "Cattleya alliance", and not correctly placed in Laelia. Even apart from generic assignments, there seems to be a nomenclatural tangle here. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's little hope of all sources agreeing on classification, but that's just all the more reason to cite whichever source we are using. Following the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (linked above, and now cited in the article) is probably a pretty good starting point (although I'm open to other suggestions). Kingdon (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another paper mentions various genera the Brasilian Laelias have been placed. A 3rd paper sinks the whole clade Cattleya/Sophrontis/Brasilian Laelia clade into Cattleya. Wikipedia PT has it under pt:Brasilaelia, which in the light of the first paper is where I would be tempted to place it - but I can't get at the literature to check that it says what I think that it ought to say. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]