That's alright Al....I see your post was after 9:00 pm. They have already
rolled up the sidewalks in Leesburg and turned off the street lights. You
can't do much anyway this late at night

I guess I find this whole Twyfords thing really crazy. The plant they
choose to patent is just an average phal. They make a couple of thousand of
them and sell them cheap to Home Depot. The name they put on the tag is a
clonal name without the parents name so the plant would not be a valid
parent for anyone who wants to register the plant with the RHS unless they
did some extra work to research the parents.

All this seems like a lot of work and cost. I'm wondering if they really
did patent the plant or just put the warning on the tag?

I can't believe potted orchid mass market is that competitive that there is
even a need to patent. The majority of the customers buying a plant at Home
Depot just intend to enjoy the flowers and throw it away when the flowers
fade. They pick something that catches their eye during that trip. Somehow
I can't imagine Mom and Pop jumping into the mini-van to run to Home Depot
because they heard that a new crop of Phal Lava Glow just arrived and they
want to get the pick of the litter!

Ok....time to turn out the street lights here in Vienna.

Gene





"Al" wrote in message
...
This is such a hoot. Even the Patent and Trademark Office can't correctly
write a plant name.
The patented plant called "Golden King" has parents listed as:
Phal. (Matti Shave x Orbit) x Bambo

This is the name of Phal Golden Emperor before it capsule parent grex was
registered with the RHS. But the pollen parent of Golden Emperor is not
Bambo. It is Mambo. There is no registered cross called Bambo. :-)
And,
apparently, 'Golden King' is the clonal name on the patent document, not
'Sweet',

I noticed a similar mistake on one of the Pine Ridge documents. Mama Cass
was written Mama Case.

I am surprised the orchid naming system has held up as long as it has.

Anyway, the guards at the PTO found me loitering around the electronic
filing cabinets and ushered me out telling me (in not such polite terms)
to
"get a life." I guess I will just have to live without my proof...

Sorry, Gene, I didn't mean to usurp your thread... It's just something I
do
before I can stop myself...


"Al" wrote in message news:...
No wonder I could not get mine to set seed. It is prohibited. :-) I
can't
believe that propagation by seed is part of Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet'
FCC/AOS patent protection.



http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...OFF&u=%2Fnetah
tml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&RS=Orchid&Refine=Refin e+Search&Refi
ne=Refine+Search&Query=Orchid+AND+Phalaenopsis

That really long link (two lines worth) takes you to the search page at
the
Patent and Trademark office and shows you all Patent documents that
contain
the words Orchid and Phalaenopsis, all the way back to 1976. There are
a
dozen or more patented Phals and it is kind of interesting to read one
of
these documents even though they don't tell you weather it is just
cloning
that is being protected or all forms of propagation. Pine Ridge sure
has
been busy.

Even though Phal Golden Emperor 'Sweet' FCC/AOS is listed as patented
everywhere else on the internet that it's name is mentioned strangely I
have
been unable to find the patent documentation for it at the PTO itself.
The
closest in color, time frame and originator is for a plant listed as
"Orchid
Plant: Golden King"

Taida's webpage claims:
Phal. Golden Emperor "Sweet" FCC/AOS FCC/OSROC
"Very beautiful flower, Large flower, Take the FCC class from AOS, and
our
company get pattent from American."
http://www.servernet.com.tw/taida/presents3.htm

I will keep searching but I feel I am very close to learning from
documents
at the patent office itself, just what types of propagation are
protected....

No, I do not have a life...



"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
One of the first patented Phals that I remember was Phal Golden
Emperor
'Sweet' FCC/AOS. If I remember right it was protected from all forms
of
propagation. If anyone cared I guess they could ask a lawyer.

Trader Joes is getting some dendrobriums from Yamamoto in Hawaii that
are patented. One is Den Sea Mary 'Snow King'. This is a beautiful,
pure white, easy-to-bloom orchid.

Although I don't like buying patented orchids, I think that respecting a
patent is respecting all the cost and effort that went into the research
and development of the item. If one produced a pure blue cattleya that
glowed in the dark; thus, he/she would want to obtain a patent, etc. for
it to limit the quantity and keep the price up. (This is what CITIES
does to a certain extent -- it prohibits certain paphs and phrags from
coming into the country, making them scarce so that they are very
pricey. And, if you are one of the fortunate ones who has a good
specimen; i.e. Paph sanderiana, then you have a corner on the market via
such documents that outlaw the flood of the imported species into the
marketplace).

Armstrong and Jackson & Perkins have had patents on roses since I can
remember. There are other types of plants that are sold with patent
notices as well. But, in as far as orchids go, I think that some orchid
growers are going to the trouble of mericloning and gene-splicing to the
extent of interjecting a third (3N) set of chromosomes that sometimes
make the plant sterile. Many 3N hybrids out there will produce pods,
but one allows the pod to go to maturity only to find the seeds sterile.

.. . . Pam
Everything Orchid Management System
http://www.pe.net/~profpam/page3.html

--------------------------------------------------

Al wrote:

Here is what Terry Glancy of Pine Ridge Orchids wrote about "Lave Glow" in
the International Phalaenopsis Alaince email digest in March. Terry is the
originator of the plant that Twyford Labs clones and markets as Lava Glow to
producers who sell them to Home Depot:

Terry wrote:
"Harmony Rose" is my plant of (Ken Peterson X Mama Cass) 'Pine Ridge 6'
(patent pending) and "Lava Glow" is Baldan
Orchids' (Buddha's Treasure X pulcherrima) 'Lava Glow'. I have been trying
to "persuade" them to at least put the
"commercial name" in double quotes so that buyers might realize the
"commercial name" has nothing to do with the
RHS/AOS registered grex names.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Pat,

Funny you should mention Twyford's Lava Glow.....I started this discussion
because at the Home Depot in Reston there is a cart of out of bloom Phal
Lava Glow for 1/2 price. They have a Twyford's tag with the "don't you
even
think about trying to make a copy of this plant" warning.

So they have patented a plant that Home Depot can't sell for 1/2 price
grin. Ok they are out of bloom but look amazingly well. I had to
look....it's like a car accident on the highway and you have to slow down
and check it out.

Now what I find really interesting is that they haven't even registered
Lava
Glow on the RHS database? Furthermore, they don't have any particular
clone
of Lava Glow indicated on the tag!

Good Growing,
Gene

Research and development costs?

Hmmmmmmm not really hard to put pollen on the ovaries is it?

I can do it without research.

"profpam" wrote in message ...
Trader Joes is getting some dendrobriums from Yamamoto in Hawaii that
are patented. One is Den Sea Mary 'Snow King'. This is a beautiful,
pure white, easy-to-bloom orchid.

Although I don't like buying patented orchids, I think that respecting a
patent is respecting all the cost and effort that went into the research
and development of the item. If one produced a pure blue cattleya that
glowed in the dark; thus, he/she would want to obtain a patent, etc. for
it to limit the quantity and keep the price up. (This is what CITIES
does to a certain extent -- it prohibits certain paphs and phrags from
coming into the country, making them scarce so that they are very
pricey. And, if you are one of the fortunate ones who has a good
specimen; i.e. Paph sanderiana, then you have a corner on the market via
such documents that outlaw the flood of the imported species into the
marketplace).

Armstrong and Jackson & Perkins have had patents on roses since I can
remember. There are other types of plants that are sold with patent
notices as well. But, in as far as orchids go, I think that some orchid
growers are going to the trouble of mericloning and gene-splicing to the
extent of interjecting a third (3N) set of chromosomes that sometimes
make the plant sterile. Many 3N hybrids out there will produce pods,
but one allows the pod to go to maturity only to find the seeds sterile.

. . . Pam
Everything Orchid Management System
http://www.pe.net/~profpam/page3.html

--------------------------------------------------

Al wrote:

Here is what Terry Glancy of Pine Ridge Orchids wrote about "Lave Glow"
in
the International Phalaenopsis Alaince email digest in March. Terry is
the
originator of the plant that Twyford Labs clones and markets as Lava
Glow to
producers who sell them to Home Depot:

Terry wrote:
"Harmony Rose" is my plant of (Ken Peterson X Mama Cass) 'Pine Ridge 6'
(patent pending) and "Lava Glow" is Baldan
Orchids' (Buddha's Treasure X pulcherrima) 'Lava Glow'. I have been
trying
to "persuade" them to at least put the
"commercial name" in double quotes so that buyers might realize the
"commercial name" has nothing to do with the
RHS/AOS registered grex names.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Pat,

Funny you should mention Twyford's Lava Glow.....I started this
discussion
because at the Home Depot in Reston there is a cart of out of bloom
Phal
Lava Glow for 1/2 price. They have a Twyford's tag with the "don't
you
even
think about trying to make a copy of this plant" warning.

So they have patented a plant that Home Depot can't sell for 1/2 price
grin. Ok they are out of bloom but look amazingly well. I had to
look....it's like a car accident on the highway and you have to slow
down
and check it out.

Now what I find really interesting is that they haven't even
registered
Lava
Glow on the RHS database? Furthermore, they don't have any particular
clone
of Lava Glow indicated on the tag!

Good Growing,
Gene

If we want to go into detail than colombus wasn't the first to arrive. The
vikings got there a lot earlier.
Yes we do know that making a hybrid is possible, just not what all the
possibilities are.
Colombus knew that he could get to asia by sailing west. He was right, he
just nerver got far enough.
And I don't agree with the accident thing, he would have hid land
eventually.

Peter

"Geir Harris Hedemark" schreef in bericht
...
"Bolero" writes:
In actual fact when he discovered america it was by accident, they had
no
idea that land would be there and they still thought there were risks.
No
one realised what would be discovered. We already know how to create
hybrids.

We know how to create hybrids, but we don't know how to make the ones
we want. If we did, we would have done so a long time ago.

Everyone knew how to sail, but they didn't know about the american
continent. If they did, they would have gone there before 1492.

Geir

"Boystrup Pb, ann,..." writes:
If we want to go into detail than colombus wasn't the first to arrive. The
vikings got there a lot earlier.

Yes, but we norwegians are not a very literate people, with a few
notable exceptions. If you don't write things down, they haven't
happened.

Colombus knew that he could get to asia by sailing west. He was right, he
just nerver got far enough.
And I don't agree with the accident thing, he would have hid land
eventually.

I don't agree. The idea that the earth was round was very new in the
1490s. He had a fairly good idea, but he couldn't be certain at
all.

I think the man had more than his share of courage.

Geir

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Boystrup Pb, ann,..." writes:
If we want to go into detail than colombus wasn't the first to arrive.
The
vikings got there a lot earlier.

Yes, but we norwegians are not a very literate people, with a few
notable exceptions. If you don't write things down, they haven't
happened.

But your adventures in North America a thousand years ago WERE written down
in several Icelandic sagas. By that time, there were Christian priests
throughout most of the Norse world, and while the Icelandic sagas started as
oral traditions, they were written down by some of these priests during the
eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Cheers,

Ted

I am starting to really enjoy this thread.

It's all very interesting who actually discovered america. It's clear that
Columbus wasn't the one.

Just like Captain Cook wasn't the first to discover Australian, apparently
if the Spanish or Portugese had worked out how great this place is I could
be typing this out in a new language.......;-)


"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Boystrup Pb, ann,..." writes:
If we want to go into detail than colombus wasn't the first to arrive.
The
vikings got there a lot earlier.

Yes, but we norwegians are not a very literate people, with a few
notable exceptions. If you don't write things down, they haven't
happened.

But your adventures in North America a thousand years ago WERE written
down
in several Icelandic sagas. By that time, there were Christian priests
throughout most of the Norse world, and while the Icelandic sagas started
as
oral traditions, they were written down by some of these priests during
the
eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Cheers,

Ted

Perhaps we are only discussin which European discovered the Americas? That
seems fair.

While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with small pox
virus.

Another little known fact: Columbus discovered orchids would grow on Horse
Hockey chips while on his second journey to the East Indies to pick up more
of the spices and savages craved by his patrons in the civilized world.

Who writes these history books anyway?

"Bolero" wrote in message
u...
I am starting to really enjoy this thread.

It's all very interesting who actually discovered america. It's clear
that
Columbus wasn't the one.

Just like Captain Cook wasn't the first to discover Australian, apparently
if the Spanish or Portugese had worked out how great this place is I could
be typing this out in a new language.......;-)


"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Boystrup Pb, ann,..." writes:
If we want to go into detail than colombus wasn't the first to
arrive.
The
vikings got there a lot earlier.

Yes, but we norwegians are not a very literate people, with a few
notable exceptions. If you don't write things down, they haven't
happened.

But your adventures in North America a thousand years ago WERE written
down
in several Icelandic sagas. By that time, there were Christian priests
throughout most of the Norse world, and while the Icelandic sagas
started
as
oral traditions, they were written down by some of these priests during
the
eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Cheers,

Ted

"Al" writes:
While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with small pox
virus.

According to The Lore (previously mentioned), the natives of Vinland
were not hostile until they traded for some milk. They couldn't take
the lactose, and thought they had been poisoned. Exit the vikings.

How they got a cow onto one of the ships, and kept it there for a
couple of months, we will never know.

Geir

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Al" writes:
While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American
history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people
living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off
settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with small
pox
virus.

According to The Lore (previously mentioned), the natives of Vinland
were not hostile until they traded for some milk. They couldn't take
the lactose, and thought they had been poisoned. Exit the vikings.

How they got a cow onto one of the ships, and kept it there for a
couple of months, we will never know.

Geir

Actually, given current knowledge of viking vessels, we will know sooner or
later. Some of the viking ships were quite large, and we know that they had
plenty of experience transporting them around the viking world. After all,
they had to get them to Iceland and Greenland also, not to mention local
trade within Scandinavia.

But it is unlikely that even the vikings were the first Europeans to visit
North America. There is substantial recent research in a number of fields,
such as genetics and ancient history, that suggests that there has long been
European contact with North America, not to mention a much longer history of
human occupation, perhaps as long as 50k years. Of course, what most people
believe about american history represents an accepted dogma developed over
the past few decades, and it is that dogma that is increasingly being
brought into question. There is growing evidence that the "land bridge"
alleged to have existed between siberia and north america was never a viable
route; a act largely ignored by historians who have built their reputations
on existing dogma. If one looks at the physiognomy of native americas,
there is a dual gradient of decreasing European traits as one moves
westward, and a decreasing asian traits as one moves eastward; precisely
what you'd expect with two distinct populations meeting with limited gene
flow: such trends would be guaranteed to be absent if there was either no
gene flow or a rapid gene flow, such as might be observed in modern times
with the amount of travel common today. There is an obscure reference in,
IIRC, Pliny's geography to a bay that could well be the St. Lawrence
estuary: it is at the right latitude, and has the right number of islands in
the right configuration. While it is not adequate as proof of anything, it
presents a number of interesting problems. The most serius problem is,
given that the probability of him getting it right merely by chance is
indistinguishable from zero, how did he get so much right? If I have not
misunderstood him, that puts european contact with america back almost 2000
years. I have not seen a convincing explanation of that tidbit of
information, apart from Celtic travels to the gulf. And, it is clear from
Julius Ceasar's description of the ships used by the British Celts that they
had huge vessels capable of crossing the ocean: vessals that would have been
much too large and expensive to build for merely crossing the channel. (I
am working from memories of studies I did on this close to 15 years ago for
my Ed.D. thesis, some details are a bit fuzzy.)

lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic on
I guess the thing to remember regarding orchid breeding, or any other
research and development or any kind of exploration, is that, apart from
rare accidents, the most effective R&D involves extending work done by
others: predecessors and colleagues. In my own work on resilient
sustainable development, I build on a mathematical framework in calculus and
geometry that has been built up over the last century and a half give or
take a little bit, depending on where you would say that these forms of
mathematics begin. We, as researchers, use both our own experience and the
experience of others to guide our investigations in directions we believe
will be most useful.

Regarding Bolero's comment, refering to R&D costs, that "I can do it without
research." That is only partly true. Yes, you can do your crosses purely
randomly, but the moment you begin to use your experience to determine which
crosses to do, you can be said to be doing research, however simple that
research may be. Most folk cooking at home for their families can be said
to be doing basic research in food science. If you think about it, Mom
following a new recipe is conceptually no different than Sis following a
protocol to do an experiment in the nearest university; and in both cases,
what they do next will depend on how their work turned out. If Dad hated
the result of the recipe, Mom probably won't use it again, or she will
modify it based on his feedback: Mom is doing such R&D every time she tests
a new recipe or modifies an old one based on the reaction her family has to
whatever it is that it produces. Similarly, Sis will modify her protocol,
or do a number of rather different experiments, based on the outcome from
her experiment. In both cases, this is science at its best! The moment you
decide on doing a particular cross, based even on liking both parents to be
used in the cross, you can be said to be doing R&D. Yes, you might find
something interesting with your random crosses, but you haven't a rational
hope of meeting a predefined objective, such as a true blue phal with a
heavenly scent, without a well defined plan based on extensive research. It
is this that is quite expensive and warrants a degree of protection. And
this is necessary, since such R&D is the only way to acocmplish in a matter
of decades what would take many millenia by chance, if it could occur at all
by chance.
\lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic off ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

Tennis,

Thank you. Thank you. But, I see a grammatical mistake in my first
letter... let me correct it herein.

"Death to the orchid-patenting narrow-minded greedy *******s... and to the
slimeball patent lawyers working for them."

I think that better represents my true feelings on this issue.

Mick

Oh my god.

I won't attempt to reply to all that but I respect your views and I am
impressed.

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Al" writes:
While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American
history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people
living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off
settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with
small
pox
virus.

According to The Lore (previously mentioned), the natives of Vinland
were not hostile until they traded for some milk. They couldn't take
the lactose, and thought they had been poisoned. Exit the vikings.

How they got a cow onto one of the ships, and kept it there for a
couple of months, we will never know.

Geir

Actually, given current knowledge of viking vessels, we will know sooner
or
later. Some of the viking ships were quite large, and we know that they
had
plenty of experience transporting them around the viking world. After
all,
they had to get them to Iceland and Greenland also, not to mention local
trade within Scandinavia.

But it is unlikely that even the vikings were the first Europeans to visit
North America. There is substantial recent research in a number of
fields,
such as genetics and ancient history, that suggests that there has long
been
European contact with North America, not to mention a much longer history
of
human occupation, perhaps as long as 50k years. Of course, what most
people
believe about american history represents an accepted dogma developed over
the past few decades, and it is that dogma that is increasingly being
brought into question. There is growing evidence that the "land bridge"
alleged to have existed between siberia and north america was never a
viable
route; a act largely ignored by historians who have built their
reputations
on existing dogma. If one looks at the physiognomy of native americas,
there is a dual gradient of decreasing European traits as one moves
westward, and a decreasing asian traits as one moves eastward; precisely
what you'd expect with two distinct populations meeting with limited gene
flow: such trends would be guaranteed to be absent if there was either no
gene flow or a rapid gene flow, such as might be observed in modern times
with the amount of travel common today. There is an obscure reference in,
IIRC, Pliny's geography to a bay that could well be the St. Lawrence
estuary: it is at the right latitude, and has the right number of islands
in
the right configuration. While it is not adequate as proof of anything,
it
presents a number of interesting problems. The most serius problem is,
given that the probability of him getting it right merely by chance is
indistinguishable from zero, how did he get so much right? If I have not
misunderstood him, that puts european contact with america back almost
2000
years. I have not seen a convincing explanation of that tidbit of
information, apart from Celtic travels to the gulf. And, it is clear from
Julius Ceasar's description of the ships used by the British Celts that
they
had huge vessels capable of crossing the ocean: vessals that would have
been
much too large and expensive to build for merely crossing the channel. (I
am working from memories of studies I did on this close to 15 years ago
for
my Ed.D. thesis, some details are a bit fuzzy.)

lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic on
I guess the thing to remember regarding orchid breeding, or any other
research and development or any kind of exploration, is that, apart from
rare accidents, the most effective R&D involves extending work done by
others: predecessors and colleagues. In my own work on resilient
sustainable development, I build on a mathematical framework in calculus
and
geometry that has been built up over the last century and a half give or
take a little bit, depending on where you would say that these forms of
mathematics begin. We, as researchers, use both our own experience and
the
experience of others to guide our investigations in directions we believe
will be most useful.

Regarding Bolero's comment, refering to R&D costs, that "I can do it
without
research." That is only partly true. Yes, you can do your crosses purely
randomly, but the moment you begin to use your experience to determine
which
crosses to do, you can be said to be doing research, however simple that
research may be. Most folk cooking at home for their families can be said
to be doing basic research in food science. If you think about it, Mom
following a new recipe is conceptually no different than Sis following a
protocol to do an experiment in the nearest university; and in both cases,
what they do next will depend on how their work turned out. If Dad hated
the result of the recipe, Mom probably won't use it again, or she will
modify it based on his feedback: Mom is doing such R&D every time she
tests
a new recipe or modifies an old one based on the reaction her family has
to
whatever it is that it produces. Similarly, Sis will modify her protocol,
or do a number of rather different experiments, based on the outcome from
her experiment. In both cases, this is science at its best! The moment
you
decide on doing a particular cross, based even on liking both parents to
be
used in the cross, you can be said to be doing R&D. Yes, you might find
something interesting with your random crosses, but you haven't a rational
hope of meeting a predefined objective, such as a true blue phal with a
heavenly scent, without a well defined plan based on extensive research.
It
is this that is quite expensive and warrants a degree of protection. And
this is necessary, since such R&D is the only way to acocmplish in a
matter
of decades what would take many millenia by chance, if it could occur at
all
by chance.
\lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic off ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

Oh my god.

I won't attempt to reply to all that but I respect your views and I am
impressed.

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Al" writes:
While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American
history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people
living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off
settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with
small
pox
virus.

According to The Lore (previously mentioned), the natives of Vinland
were not hostile until they traded for some milk. They couldn't take
the lactose, and thought they had been poisoned. Exit the vikings.

How they got a cow onto one of the ships, and kept it there for a
couple of months, we will never know.

Geir

Actually, given current knowledge of viking vessels, we will know sooner
or
later. Some of the viking ships were quite large, and we know that they
had
plenty of experience transporting them around the viking world. After
all,
they had to get them to Iceland and Greenland also, not to mention local
trade within Scandinavia.

But it is unlikely that even the vikings were the first Europeans to visit
North America. There is substantial recent research in a number of
fields,
such as genetics and ancient history, that suggests that there has long
been
European contact with North America, not to mention a much longer history
of
human occupation, perhaps as long as 50k years. Of course, what most
people
believe about american history represents an accepted dogma developed over
the past few decades, and it is that dogma that is increasingly being
brought into question. There is growing evidence that the "land bridge"
alleged to have existed between siberia and north america was never a
viable
route; a act largely ignored by historians who have built their
reputations
on existing dogma. If one looks at the physiognomy of native americas,
there is a dual gradient of decreasing European traits as one moves
westward, and a decreasing asian traits as one moves eastward; precisely
what you'd expect with two distinct populations meeting with limited gene
flow: such trends would be guaranteed to be absent if there was either no
gene flow or a rapid gene flow, such as might be observed in modern times
with the amount of travel common today. There is an obscure reference in,
IIRC, Pliny's geography to a bay that could well be the St. Lawrence
estuary: it is at the right latitude, and has the right number of islands
in
the right configuration. While it is not adequate as proof of anything,
it
presents a number of interesting problems. The most serius problem is,
given that the probability of him getting it right merely by chance is
indistinguishable from zero, how did he get so much right? If I have not
misunderstood him, that puts european contact with america back almost
2000
years. I have not seen a convincing explanation of that tidbit of
information, apart from Celtic travels to the gulf. And, it is clear from
Julius Ceasar's description of the ships used by the British Celts that
they
had huge vessels capable of crossing the ocean: vessals that would have
been
much too large and expensive to build for merely crossing the channel. (I
am working from memories of studies I did on this close to 15 years ago
for
my Ed.D. thesis, some details are a bit fuzzy.)

lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic on
I guess the thing to remember regarding orchid breeding, or any other
research and development or any kind of exploration, is that, apart from
rare accidents, the most effective R&D involves extending work done by
others: predecessors and colleagues. In my own work on resilient
sustainable development, I build on a mathematical framework in calculus
and
geometry that has been built up over the last century and a half give or
take a little bit, depending on where you would say that these forms of
mathematics begin. We, as researchers, use both our own experience and
the
experience of others to guide our investigations in directions we believe
will be most useful.

Regarding Bolero's comment, refering to R&D costs, that "I can do it
without
research." That is only partly true. Yes, you can do your crosses purely
randomly, but the moment you begin to use your experience to determine
which
crosses to do, you can be said to be doing research, however simple that
research may be. Most folk cooking at home for their families can be said
to be doing basic research in food science. If you think about it, Mom
following a new recipe is conceptually no different than Sis following a
protocol to do an experiment in the nearest university; and in both cases,
what they do next will depend on how their work turned out. If Dad hated
the result of the recipe, Mom probably won't use it again, or she will
modify it based on his feedback: Mom is doing such R&D every time she
tests
a new recipe or modifies an old one based on the reaction her family has
to
whatever it is that it produces. Similarly, Sis will modify her protocol,
or do a number of rather different experiments, based on the outcome from
her experiment. In both cases, this is science at its best! The moment
you
decide on doing a particular cross, based even on liking both parents to
be
used in the cross, you can be said to be doing R&D. Yes, you might find
something interesting with your random crosses, but you haven't a rational
hope of meeting a predefined objective, such as a true blue phal with a
heavenly scent, without a well defined plan based on extensive research.
It
is this that is quite expensive and warrants a degree of protection. And
this is necessary, since such R&D is the only way to acocmplish in a
matter
of decades what would take many millenia by chance, if it could occur at
all
by chance.
\lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic off ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

Oh my god.

I won't attempt to reply to all that but I respect your views and I am
impressed.

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .

"Geir Harris Hedemark" wrote in message
...
"Al" writes:
While it is hard to find this fact in most European or even American
history
books there were already civilizations, tribes and nations of people
living,
loving and killing each other here for 10,000 years or more
before the Europeans sailed over in their boats and dropped off
settlers,
trinkets, beads, Christianity, gun powder and blankets laced with
small
pox
virus.

According to The Lore (previously mentioned), the natives of Vinland
were not hostile until they traded for some milk. They couldn't take
the lactose, and thought they had been poisoned. Exit the vikings.

How they got a cow onto one of the ships, and kept it there for a
couple of months, we will never know.

Geir

Actually, given current knowledge of viking vessels, we will know sooner
or
later. Some of the viking ships were quite large, and we know that they
had
plenty of experience transporting them around the viking world. After
all,
they had to get them to Iceland and Greenland also, not to mention local
trade within Scandinavia.

But it is unlikely that even the vikings were the first Europeans to visit
North America. There is substantial recent research in a number of
fields,
such as genetics and ancient history, that suggests that there has long
been
European contact with North America, not to mention a much longer history
of
human occupation, perhaps as long as 50k years. Of course, what most
people
believe about american history represents an accepted dogma developed over
the past few decades, and it is that dogma that is increasingly being
brought into question. There is growing evidence that the "land bridge"
alleged to have existed between siberia and north america was never a
viable
route; a act largely ignored by historians who have built their
reputations
on existing dogma. If one looks at the physiognomy of native americas,
there is a dual gradient of decreasing European traits as one moves
westward, and a decreasing asian traits as one moves eastward; precisely
what you'd expect with two distinct populations meeting with limited gene
flow: such trends would be guaranteed to be absent if there was either no
gene flow or a rapid gene flow, such as might be observed in modern times
with the amount of travel common today. There is an obscure reference in,
IIRC, Pliny's geography to a bay that could well be the St. Lawrence
estuary: it is at the right latitude, and has the right number of islands
in
the right configuration. While it is not adequate as proof of anything,
it
presents a number of interesting problems. The most serius problem is,
given that the probability of him getting it right merely by chance is
indistinguishable from zero, how did he get so much right? If I have not
misunderstood him, that puts european contact with america back almost
2000
years. I have not seen a convincing explanation of that tidbit of
information, apart from Celtic travels to the gulf. And, it is clear from
Julius Ceasar's description of the ships used by the British Celts that
they
had huge vessels capable of crossing the ocean: vessals that would have
been
much too large and expensive to build for merely crossing the channel. (I
am working from memories of studies I did on this close to 15 years ago
for
my Ed.D. thesis, some details are a bit fuzzy.)

lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic on
I guess the thing to remember regarding orchid breeding, or any other
research and development or any kind of exploration, is that, apart from
rare accidents, the most effective R&D involves extending work done by
others: predecessors and colleagues. In my own work on resilient
sustainable development, I build on a mathematical framework in calculus
and
geometry that has been built up over the last century and a half give or
take a little bit, depending on where you would say that these forms of
mathematics begin. We, as researchers, use both our own experience and
the
experience of others to guide our investigations in directions we believe
will be most useful.

Regarding Bolero's comment, refering to R&D costs, that "I can do it
without
research." That is only partly true. Yes, you can do your crosses purely
randomly, but the moment you begin to use your experience to determine
which
crosses to do, you can be said to be doing research, however simple that
research may be. Most folk cooking at home for their families can be said
to be doing basic research in food science. If you think about it, Mom
following a new recipe is conceptually no different than Sis following a
protocol to do an experiment in the nearest university; and in both cases,
what they do next will depend on how their work turned out. If Dad hated
the result of the recipe, Mom probably won't use it again, or she will
modify it based on his feedback: Mom is doing such R&D every time she
tests
a new recipe or modifies an old one based on the reaction her family has
to
whatever it is that it produces. Similarly, Sis will modify her protocol,
or do a number of rather different experiments, based on the outcome from
her experiment. In both cases, this is science at its best! The moment
you
decide on doing a particular cross, based even on liking both parents to
be
used in the cross, you can be said to be doing R&D. Yes, you might find
something interesting with your random crosses, but you haven't a rational
hope of meeting a predefined objective, such as a true blue phal with a
heavenly scent, without a well defined plan based on extensive research.
It
is this that is quite expensive and warrants a degree of protection. And
this is necessary, since such R&D is the only way to acocmplish in a
matter
of decades what would take many millenia by chance, if it could occur at
all
by chance.
\lame attempt to bring the discussion back on topic off ;-)

Cheers,

Ted