Hi Xi,

Seems that you understand the naming convention and are correct that an
orchid name does not describe an unique gene pool. I have changed your
example a little to remove mitochondrial DNA issues although I did not have
to since AxB = BxA. I agree that [(AxB)x(CxD)] is equivalent to
[(AxD)x(CxB)] although RHS would give them different names.

Ray is correct that making these two hybrid could produce very different
results. As an example, if only A and D carried a recessive albino gene,
the first cross would make some whites while the second cross should produce
none. But since sibbing and selfing does not change the name, sibbing or
selfing the right plants from the second cross would also produce some
whites and still carry the name of the second hybrid. I think the two
hybrid names define exactly the same gene pool. I do not think there is any
genetic combination in the first cross that could not be produced from the
second with selfing or sib crosses. In fact, I think both names define all
of the genetic material of A, B, C, and D.

As you said RHS naming is just a convention we have to accept. The
convention is different than what is used by most of the plant world. For
most of the plant world individual plants being released for sales are named
and the cross they came out of is not tracked. Some of the major cloning
companies have taken this approach to naming orchids and you will sometimes
see plants such as Phal 'Snowapple' for sale. Boy has this made orchid
people scream, but for consumers who knows nothing of RHS it makes more
sense. The labs have been pretty good responding to the screaming in that
most of them will now provide RHS names if asked.

Pat