Both you and Wendy are right, to some degree. The problem is that for
many
kinds of orchids, there are a great many cultivars that produce flowers
that
are difficult to distinguish. If someone has a white phal, but no name
for
it, no-one has a hope of identifying the cross that produced it since
there
are so many white phals. This is what Wendy is refering to.

That's what I thought--meaning, to me, that there still exists a slim chance
of slapping a *probable* idetification on something more unique and
distinctive. Like my probable Calumnara Wildcat Doris.

But in principle, it is possible to identify any hybrid if genetic finger
printing data were available for every species/clone that has ever been
grown.

Well, sure. Bear in mind, with eyeballing I was hoping to achieve a
[probable/possible] name like "Phal Pink Stripes derivative" instead of one
like "Phal. (Brother Spots x Brother Purple) 'Very Red' x Dtps. (Kelsie
Takasaki x Brother Lawrence) Brilliance". But I do realize the difficulties.

Since you enjoy research, I would encourage you to do plenty, and to start
you may want to look at Eric Christenson's book on phalaenopsis.

It would require putting it on my Amazon wish list, but I'll do that right
away and hope someone gets it for me next month! They might have it at the
local library in Dutch, if it's been out long enough to be picked up for
translation--I'll have a look.

He deals
primarily with species and naturally occuring hybrids, but reading his
work
with a critical eye will give you a sense of what is and what is not
possible, and the kinds of difficulties in identifying plants. But to get
the most out of it, you need to ask questions like, "what is the empirical
basis for this claim?" and "Is that judgement reasonable given the
empirical
evidence he has given relating to it?" And once you have extended your
readings to other books on phalanopsis taxonomy, you can begin to ask
questions like "Is this judgement reasonable given all the empirical
evidence I have studied in all these references?"

Understood. Isn't that just an element of good research?

Once you get a better
handle on taxonomy, you will gain an appreciation for the fact that in
many
many cases it is not possible to accurately identify an unlabelled
horticultural specimen.

Actually, I have a very good grounding in zoological taxonomy (old and new)
and know a fair bit about herbs' and spices' names too, so I do understand
what you mean, and it won't be too difficult to pick up the new terms.

I even once had a job that often involved trying to apply a name under which
to sell finches that had come out of an aviary that had been undergoing
uncontrolled hybridization in someone's back yard for decades. Quite a lot
of them can cross-breed, and not very many of the offsring come up mules.
Often it was totally impossible, but we'd try--"Call it a Society Siskin",
"Call it a Zebra Bleu"... so I won't be surprised if the very best I can do
with the phal's turns out to be, say, "Probably some golden sunshine
hybrid". But I'd like to give narrowing it down that far the old college
try!

Thanks very much for your input,

Katrina


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/6/03