Interesting paper, Kathy. I am trying to digest it.

Not being a geneticists having only done first year genetics at University
as part of Biology 101, my understanding is (simplistically) if you cross a
tetraploid with a diploid don't you get a triploid which is nominally
sterile? Therefore, if a plant in the wild spontaneously mutated to a 4n
then most likely all the crosses would then be with 2n plants (unless there
was another 4n somewhere nearby) and the ensuing seedlings would be 3n and
probably sterile. Is this nature's way of preserving the status quo?

I'm sure there are more learned people out there who will correct me.

Cheers

John


"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Speaking of species, recently we had an assignment on creating
'amphidiploids' and using them in a theorectical hybridizing project.

Thank god I had a few contacts through the internet to help me
learn/understand what an amphidiploid is. Not that I ever truly grasped
much of what they were telling me. My pea-brain interpreted an
amphidiploid as a polyploid or 4n plant, which is a gross
oversimplification of the term and concept.

Anyway, Marilyn Light passed along this URL about polyploid evolution
that I found interesting. In it the author quotes Soltis and Soltis who
(I believe I'm reading this right) are researching the idea that way back
at the beginning of angiosperms, flowering plants had very few chromosomes
(4? 8?) and that, in nature, improper gametogenesis happens much more
frequently than we think is does. Leading to a higher production rate of
polyploids than previously understood. And, as we all know, the "4n"
plants out-compete the '2n' plants. Therefore they posit that present day
flowering plants with their present day chromosome numbers are the result
of millenia of natural polyploid selection.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mbhat...yevolution.pdf

I'm not sure if that's the same as the 'first flower' idea that a
different group is chasing down, the same way researchers at Berkeley
chased down 'Eve' using mitichondrial/extra-nuclear DNA.

But its interesting.

K Barrett

In case you wondered, my theotectical project involved putting Laelia
lundii onto either B. cucullata, Soph. cernua or L alaorii in order to
capitalize on that great lip. Selfing the most interesting ones, treating
with colchicine to create the amphidiploid, then putting that on some of
Granier's large floofy blue orchds (whch have to be 4n by now) or
continuing with small orchids for the hobby greenhouse by putting it onto
L (Brazilia?) sincorana 4n etc.

See how we waste our time? LOL!!


"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
Let's not be a species snob, John. Buy the orchid if you like it. *G*

K Barrett

"John Varigos" wrote in message
om...
Thanks Niek, Kathy and Eric for the help in IDing this one. I am
devastated that this is not a species because it is so nice.

Cheers

John

"Eric Hunt" wrote in message
...
John,

Eric Christenson says it's a hybrid, possibly falcata x flabellata.

-Eric in SF
www.orchidphotos.org

"John Varigos" wrote in message
om...
Does anyone know the real name of this species? The name on the label
is not recognised by Kew. The grower says that it came from Thailand.
The colours are quite lovely and I would love one of these but not
sure what I should be ordering.
~John