On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:40:50 -0400, "Al"
wrote:

regular and trilaterally symmetric? Isn't the inner whorl still irregular,
even though it is not it's "normal" state of irregularity? It has two
petals and no lip rather than three petals and a lip. It has bilateral
symmetry, yes, but so does the normally irregular inner whorl of the orchid
flower. I would think the three petals of the inner whorl need to be
mutated in some whey to make them all similar to each other for it to be
peloric by the botanical definition of the word..

...just playing devil's advocate, SuE


I expected as much when I posted. But Even thou a standard
definition of peloric would require a third lip or 3 petals - I
think this is equally symmetric and abnormal in its irregularity.
It has both the petals and the sepals abnormally truncated from 3
to 2 and they display opposite one another. Thus the display is
symmetric and the flower is symmetrically balanced in appearance.

So devil's advocate -- how is that not peloric? Where did it say
that it had to maintain 3 "petal/lip" parts? Or 3 sepal parts? I
heard only the symmetrical in its irregularity of the flower
parts.

SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php