Talk:Ophrys

message: What's with the article's statements
"They are considered the most important group of European terrestrial orchids"
and
"The flowers surpass all other European orchids"?
I have nothing against Ophrys, but the one species in Sweden and
Scandinavia as a whole isn't that exciting.
If they are very dominating in cultivation, or something, please say so.
JöG 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These statements are based on the book "Illustrated Orchid encyclopedia" by Zdenêk Jezek, a Czech botanist and author of many books about orchids (Dutch translation Rebo International 2003 ). I agree these are somewhat strong statements, but they reflect a reality which can't be denied. The morphology of Ophrys is special through its extreme mimicry. And as to Sweden and Scandinavia, this region can hardly be representative for the whole European flora. JoJan 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an enthusiast for Mediterranean flowers, I would agree with these statements. But that's my personal opinion; it's quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The superiority of Ophrys?

message: I have removed a paragraph which read:
The Bumblebee Orchid (Ophrys bombyliflora) is a typical example. It has flowers that look and smell so much like female bumblebees that males flying nearby are irresistibly drawn in by this chemical signal, stimulating them sexually. The insect gets so excited that he starts to copulate with the flower. The firmness, the smoothness and the velvety hairs of the lip are a further incentive for the insect to enter the flower. The pollinia inadvertently stick to the head or the abdomen of the male bumblebee. On visiting another orchid of the same species, the bumblebee pollinates its sticky stigma with the pollinia. The filaments of the pollinia have, during transport, taken such a position that the waxy pollen are able to stick to the stigma. Such is the refinement of the reproduction. If the filaments hadn’t taken the new position, the pollinia could not have pollinated the new orchid. [Referenced to: The Orchids, Natural History and Classification, Robert L. Dressler.  ]
I have no idea whether the source says this, but if it does, it's wrong. Here are some obvious errors:
*Bumblebees are much too large to pollinate O. bombyliflora which has the smallest flowers in the genus.
*Male bumblebees are produced by colonies at the end of the summer and early autumn; Ophrys species flower in spring when the over-wintering males of solitary bees and other hymenoptera emerge.
*All the reliable sources I can find say that O. bombyliflora is pollinated by solitary bees of the genus Eucera (there's one ref. at Ophrys bombyliflora).
*Pollinators of any given species do not collect pollinia either on the head or the abdomen. The tactile signals produced by the flowers orient pollinators in one direction or the other. I haven't checked, but it's likely that in O. bombyliflora they face into the centre.
Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pollination of ''Ophrys bombyliflora''

message: The number of species of Ophrys varies WILDLY from source to source. The areas covered by the following aren't totally comparable but the figures give a sense of the variation.
Source                                                                             	Number of species
Flora Europaea Vol. 5 (Tutin et al. 1980)                                          	20
Wild Orchids of Britain and Europe (Davies et al. 1983)                            	28
Field Guide to Orchids of Britain and Europe (Buttler 1991)                        	53
Mediterranean Wild Flowers (Blamey & Grey-Wilson 1993)                             	23
Orchids of Britain and Europe (Delforge 1995)                                      	130
Guide des orchidées d’Europe, d’Afrique du Nord et du Proche-Orient (Delforge 2001)	252
The Bee Orchids of Europe (Pedersen & Faurholdt 2007)                              	19
Annals of Botany 101: 385-402 (Devey et al. 2008)                                  	~10 phylogenetically distinguishable groups
All the latest academic work suggests that the number of species used by Buttler and Delforge is a gross over-estimate. The list in the article should (a) be referenced (b) reflect the total uncertainty in the number of species. Unfortunately I don't have time to sort this now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now replaced the "Species" section with a new one, based on the list in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. This seems to be the most reliable up-to-date source. I have explained that other sources give widely varying numbers of species. (The hybrids need doing as well; or even removing?) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of species