ahh, I feel ya, doesn't it suck when ya write a huge-ass reply and it deletes it?!

well, I will give you that, I haven't been the best when it comes to the structure and-or stature of the plant and its tubers, but yes; the structure of the tuberoids matches dactylorhiza very closely. it's puzzling because the general plant and flower form of C. or D. virade most resembles Platanthera or possibly even Habenaria, as they both have a cosmopolitan distribution in the northern hemisphere. I will aggree with the premise that it behaves very closely to Dactylorhiza and does hybridize freely with the genus, but through its distribution which does touch that of Dactylorhiza, it inhabits a distribution that is more southernly and westerly within North America beyond the range of that genus, virade also inhabits circumpolar regions within Canada and Greenland which Dactylorhiza does not inhabit, in summarry, while all the arguments for its placement within the genus are perfectly sound, I'd like to consider that it can be in its own genus on the premise of its intermediate status of form and hybridization. a good example of this is the Japanese orchid Neofinetia falcata, in distribution, it inhabits the region dominated by the Vanda alliance but exhibits traits of and freely breeds with the angraecoid alliance. I know that the RHS classified it as a Vanda but I strongly dissaggree on the basis that it breeds with Ascosentrum and Angraecum, a trait that isn't posessed by any other plant, and I think that the free breeding of Ceologlossum virade with Dactylorhiza and Platanthera, and I can assume Habenaria and Orchis leads me to believe that it may be able to be treated in the same manner. I'll aggree that DNA analysis is rather conclusive but taxonomy can be placed upon that, geographic distribution, floral and plant habits, all of these factors must be considered. as an example, morphologically, several species in the genus Bulbophyllum from south Asia and Africa almost belong in the genera Pleurothallis and Masdavaelia, but they are in the genus Bulbophyllum because pleurothallids inhabit the new world and Bulbophyllums come from Asia and Africa. it needs to all be considered.

I do aggree with the basis of the merging of genera, I always thought that Barlia should've been just a part of himatoglossum, Aceras I thought would fit into Orchis, and on an opposite paradigm, I resolve that Anacptis, A. pyramidalis and A. papilionacea should be left out of Orchis on a few bases. with this in Mind, I think a genus should be defined by the resemblance in morphology and proximity of a species to the original type species of said genus. (hardolarelias and rupiculous laelias are NOT Sophronitis!!!)