Genetic mapping would be the best way to ID hybrids, but then we'd no doubt
find lots of registered hybrids that were the same, and the "same" ones that
are actually different!

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news:5oI_c.320405$J06.197116@pd7tw2no...
Hi,

Oh I agree complete that my African Queen vs. Lee Koi Choon example does
not give you plants with identical genes, no cross does. This is why I
did not say identical, I said equivalent. There is a lot of variation,
but based on the parentage, it is *theoretically* possible that you could
have one plant of African Queen that is exactly identical to Lee Koi
Choon, although this is not the case in the vast majority of the time. I
mean, no two Violet Charms are the same unless they are clones, and yet
this entire genetic spectrum of plants are all called that simply because
they have the same parentage, and contain half and half of their genes. I
mean, if I gave you an African Queen and a Lee Koi Choon, without telling
you which was which and said here's a DNA sequencer that can tell you what
genes came from which species, but not the exact root it took to get
there, one would most likely conclude that the two specimens should be of
the same grex. I guess once again it is just a convention I'll have to
accept. You raised the point of different genes coming from pollen vs.
seed, which is definitely true much like how mitochondrial DNA is only
inherited from the mother in the human. However, BxC = CxB in terms of
naming with the RHS.....

Cheers,
Xi

Ray wrote:

As to your first point about selfing, you are absolutely correct that the
genetic percentages could be redistributed differently, but remember that
the hybridization of orchids has been going on a lot longer than we have
even known about genetics, so Violet Charm x Violet Charm = Violet Charm,
by convention.

On your second point, I think you're really oversimplifying the genetics,
as it's not just percentage contributions from parent that make the
difference.

Based upon my readings and discussions with folks who really do know this
stuff, (A x B) x (C x D) is very likely not at all equivalent to (A x C)
x (B x D) due to the dominant/recessive issue among others. Look at the
simple A x B cross - offspring can show AB, Ab, aB, and ab gene pairs.
Are they the same hybrid? Yes, Are they "equivalent?" No. Now multiply
that single gene by the total number and the combinations get far more
diverse.

That is also why your African Queen vs. Lee Koi Choon example fails.
Going back to your (A x B) x (C x D) versus (A x C) x (B x D) example,
it is highly unlikely, but entirely possible that the first cross ends up
with genes entirely from A & C, while the second is B & D, which nobody
would argue to be the same. That, however, lends total validity to your
Violet Charm point!

Then there's pollen versus pod parent issues, in which - apparently (so
I've heard) - some genes come almost exclusively from the pod parent...