Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More Naming Convention Questions
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
More pictures of Hosta convention, Cleveland 2005 | Gardening | |||
[IBC] BSF Convention was Bonsai Questions | Bonsai | |||
More Naming Convention Questions | Orchids | |||
Cultivar Naming Convention | Orchids | |||
[IBC] naming styles | Bonsai |