Hi group,

I was thinking about naming selfed plants, and I can see why Phal ABC
'X' x self should get a different clonal name - it is not a clone of
'X'. However, why would it still be called Phal ABC? Let's take a real
life example like Phal Violet Charm = Phal amabilis X Phal sanderiana
[1924]. All Phal Violet Charm plants, clearly, will have 50% of its
genes from either parent no matter what the cultivar. If we self the
plant, it produces a genetic spectrum of offspring, some again sharing
the 50/50 split of amabilis and sanderiana, but it is also possible,
albeit unlikely, that the progeny of this selfing could result in a
plant that has 100% amabilis genes, whose exact 'clone' with respect to
it's alleles, theoretically could've been obtained through selfing the
original amabilis parent. So, genetically, why would it be logical to
call the progeny of the selfing Phal Violet Charm again? Is this just
convention because otherwise it would get too complicated?

And while I was typing up the above, another question popped into my
head. Suppose we have species A, B, C, and D. Genetically (A x B) x (C
x D) is equivalent to (A x C) x (B x D) right? And yet, since A x B, C
x D, A x C, and B x D would all have different grexes, so would these
two second generation hybrids despite the fact that they are genetically
identical in terms of what percentage of the genes came from where. For
example:

Phal. African Queen [1986]
= Phal. (Norman x Princess Kaiulani)
= Phal. ((fasciata x violacea) x (violacea x amboinensis))

Phal. Lee Koi Choon [1987]
= Phal. (violacea x Golden Pride)
= Phal. (violacea x (amboinensis x fasciata))

Percentage-wise, the genetic makeup for both these plants are identical,
so why do we give them different names?

Cheers,
Xi

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...
--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news:Try_c.320131$gE.190596@pd7tw3no...
Hi group,

I was thinking about naming selfed plants, and I can see why Phal ABC 'X'
x self should get a different clonal name - it is not a clone of 'X'.
However, why would it still be called Phal ABC? Let's take a real life
example like Phal Violet Charm = Phal amabilis X Phal sanderiana [1924].
All Phal Violet Charm plants, clearly, will have 50% of its genes from
either parent no matter what the cultivar. If we self the plant, it
produces a genetic spectrum of offspring, some again sharing the 50/50
split of amabilis and sanderiana, but it is also possible, albeit
unlikely, that the progeny of this selfing could result in a plant that
has 100% amabilis genes, whose exact 'clone' with respect to it's alleles,
theoretically could've been obtained through selfing the original amabilis
parent. So, genetically, why would it be logical to call the progeny of
the selfing Phal Violet Charm again? Is this just convention because
otherwise it would get too complicated?

And while I was typing up the above, another question popped into my head.
Suppose we have species A, B, C, and D. Genetically (A x B) x (C x D) is
equivalent to (A x C) x (B x D) right? And yet, since A x B, C x D, A x
C, and B x D would all have different grexes, so would these two second
generation hybrids despite the fact that they are genetically identical in
terms of what percentage of the genes came from where. For example:

Phal. African Queen [1986]
= Phal. (Norman x Princess Kaiulani)
= Phal. ((fasciata x violacea) x (violacea x amboinensis))

Phal. Lee Koi Choon [1987]
= Phal. (violacea x Golden Pride)
= Phal. (violacea x (amboinensis x fasciata))

Percentage-wise, the genetic makeup for both these plants are identical,
so why do we give them different names?

Cheers,
Xi

In addition to everything Ray said, there's a second monkeywrench to toss
into the mix: that of the RHS naming comventions. Genetics has nothing to
do with naming crosses. AxB = C is the same as BxA. That's still = C, even
though this reciprocal cross may be teh same, better or worse than the
original.

So going back to your example: "Suppose we have species A, B, C, and D.
Genetically (A x B) x (C x D) is
equivalent to (A x C) x (B x D) right? "

As Ray has said: wrong. But where naming is concerned in (BxA) x (DxC) the
parents are named the same as in your example, though the plants resulting
from those crosses could vary tremenously. Where the resultant (F1) hybrid
is concerned (DxC) x (AxB) is named the same as your original (A x B) x (C x
D). As would any permutation of parents as long as they are kept the same
within parentheses.

The scientific inaccuracy is mind boggling. So eventually you learn to give
up and accept it. *G* That is why hybridizers spend so much time acquiring a
stud collection and learning their clones. Hybridizing much more complicted
than just knowing parents. Its knowing the exemplary individuals within the
species or cross. There are C. labiatas and C. labiatas, but C. labiata 'Leo
Holguin' is an alba form that breed true. Experienced hybridizers not only
take into account traits such as form or color, but also whether a plant
makes seed and is a good parent. Granted much of hybridizing is a by the
seat of your pants method. But older hybridizers actually had a method to
their madness. There's a wealth of knowledge in stud books, but I don't
think anyone would give you acces to them. How one gains access to that
knowledge is by delving through back issues of magazines and reading as much
as possible about what little has been published. And talking to the people
in the industry and in specialized groups about clones and hybrids. Ernest
Hetherington at the Orchid Digest magazine wanted to archive the stud books
of several influential hybridizers, however even he is getting some
resistance. I hope he persists.

K Barrett

"Ray" wrote in message
...
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...
--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
.
"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news:Try_c.320131$gE.190596@pd7tw3no...
Hi group,

I was thinking about naming selfed plants, and I can see why Phal ABC
'X'
x self should get a different clonal name - it is not a clone of 'X'.
However, why would it still be called Phal ABC? Let's take a real life
example like Phal Violet Charm = Phal amabilis X Phal sanderiana [1924].
All Phal Violet Charm plants, clearly, will have 50% of its genes from
either parent no matter what the cultivar. If we self the plant, it
produces a genetic spectrum of offspring, some again sharing the 50/50
split of amabilis and sanderiana, but it is also possible, albeit
unlikely, that the progeny of this selfing could result in a plant that
has 100% amabilis genes, whose exact 'clone' with respect to it's
alleles,
theoretically could've been obtained through selfing the original
amabilis
parent. So, genetically, why would it be logical to call the progeny of
the selfing Phal Violet Charm again? Is this just convention because
otherwise it would get too complicated?

And while I was typing up the above, another question popped into my
head.
Suppose we have species A, B, C, and D. Genetically (A x B) x (C x D)
is
equivalent to (A x C) x (B x D) right? And yet, since A x B, C x D, A x
C, and B x D would all have different grexes, so would these two second
generation hybrids despite the fact that they are genetically identical
in
terms of what percentage of the genes came from where. For example:

Phal. African Queen [1986]
= Phal. (Norman x Princess Kaiulani)
= Phal. ((fasciata x violacea) x (violacea x amboinensis))

Phal. Lee Koi Choon [1987]
= Phal. (violacea x Golden Pride)
= Phal. (violacea x (amboinensis x fasciata))

Percentage-wise, the genetic makeup for both these plants are identical,
so why do we give them different names?

Cheers,
Xi

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...

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...

Hi,

Agreed, but there's an even more troubling issue, which is that two
different plants may actually be grouped into the same grex under this
simplification. There are plenty of 16-20th generation hybrids, which,
if one takes a look into their genes, possess very similar genetic
demographics, and could very well be confused as the same grex if one
were not aware of the crosses with which those genes were assembled. I
have a spreadsheet set up which looks at which crosses were used to make
which plant, and traces the full lineage and calculates the genetic
makeup of a plant. There are tonnes and tonnes of plants with similar
genetic makeups (eg. ~60% amabilis, ~10% amboinensis, ~10% schilleriana,
~10% sanderiana, ~10% stuartiana). They are all different in terms of
the crosses involved, but if you gave them to a phylogenist who had no
knowledge of orchids, he would say they are all the same thing. And I
mean, since orchids breed so easily with one another to give fertile
offspring, how does one really define species, or genera for that
matter. There's one intergeneric which is a mix of 9 'true genera'.

Cheers,
Xi

Ray wrote:

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!

Xi Wang wrote in message news:5oI_c.320405$J06.197116@pd7tw2no...
(big snip)
I mean, no two Violet Charms are the same unless they are clones.
(snip)

The grex system is not designed to uniquely identify each and every
unique hybrid plant. The ability to give plants clonal names does
that. It augments the grex system to allow you to distinguish between
plants that have identical ancestry but different phenotypes.

The grex system records ancestry, so that breeders can reconstruct the
geneology of hybrids. This gives them some idea how to replicate or
modify a line of breeding. Most other groups of horticulturally
important plants do not follow the grex system. Instead, each unique
plant is given a cultivar name that is published with a description of
the plant. Technically, a plant with completely different ancestry
could be the same cultivar if it meets all the criteria in the
description.

Each system has advantages and disadvantages. In the orchid grex
system, a plant is useless if its ancestry is unknown. With a
cultivar system, a beautiful plant with unknown ancestry can still be
described and used for hybridizing. The key is to write a
sufficiently detail description so that unrelated plants do not fall
into the same cultivar.

Nick
--