Rob,

I beg your pardon... did you really just say (or insinuate) on this public
forum in front of thousands of viewers/my_customers that the Cattleya
species I sell on my website are not species and as far from being a species
as any hybrid?

Just say yes or no.

Mick


=============================

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
keith ;-) wrote:
Good for you Mick I also love my species,but don't hate hybrids as long
as
they have a name.I don't go for NOIDS !I have a few from my first
orchids I
got but you learn & progress as the little suckers draw you in!!
PS no need for a dig at us brits!



But of course those line bred species cattleyas are about as close to
the 'original species' as any hybrid. *grin* After a dozen generations
in captivity they probably wouldn't survive 10 minutes in the native
habitat.

Just poking a stick into the hornet nest...



--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

It would really suck to find out you hated species as much as you hate
hybrids. oh well


"Mick Fournier" wrote in message
. ..
Rob,

I beg your pardon... did you really just say (or insinuate) on this public
forum in front of thousands of viewers/my_customers that the Cattleya
species I sell on my website are not species and as far from being a
species
as any hybrid?

Just say yes or no.

Mick


=============================

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
keith ;-) wrote:
Good for you Mick I also love my species,but don't hate hybrids as long
as
they have a name.I don't go for NOIDS !I have a few from my first
orchids I
got but you learn & progress as the little suckers draw you in!!
PS no need for a dig at us brits!



But of course those line bred species cattleyas are about as close to
the 'original species' as any hybrid. *grin* After a dozen generations
in captivity they probably wouldn't survive 10 minutes in the native
habitat.

Just poking a stick into the hornet nest...



--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Pat,

My whole business is devoted to preserving and perpetuating the absolute
best of species. Cattleya species are especially important to me... it is
hard for me for to adequately express just how upset I am at this moment.

I am waiting patiently right here for Rob Halgren to respond to my question.

Mick

=============================


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
It would really suck to find out you hated species as much as you hate
hybrids. oh well


"Mick Fournier" wrote in message
. ..
Rob,

I beg your pardon... did you really just say (or insinuate) on this
public
forum in front of thousands of viewers/my_customers that the Cattleya
species I sell on my website are not species and as far from being a
species
as any hybrid?

Just say yes or no.

Mick


=============================

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
keith ;-) wrote:
Good for you Mick I also love my species,but don't hate hybrids as
long
as
they have a name.I don't go for NOIDS !I have a few from my first
orchids I
got but you learn & progress as the little suckers draw you in!!
PS no need for a dig at us brits!



But of course those line bred species cattleyas are about as close to
the 'original species' as any hybrid. *grin* After a dozen
generations
in captivity they probably wouldn't survive 10 minutes in the native
habitat.

Just poking a stick into the hornet nest...



--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Mick Fournier wrote:
Pat,

My whole business is devoted to preserving and perpetuating the absolute
best of species. Cattleya species are especially important to me... it is
hard for me for to adequately express just how upset I am at this moment.

I am waiting patiently right here for Rob Halgren to respond to my question.

Oh Mick, you know I like to push buttons. I must have found one. I
don't know about your Cattleya species, or what your breeding program is
like. And devoting your life to cattleya species is an admirable thing,
more people should be as committed to various orchid genera.

But, my point was that there has been a lot of line breeding in
cattleyas (and phalaenopsis, and paphiopedilum, and anything else that
is worth having). It is my contention, however, that line breeding of
any species leads to results that are not typical of a wild type
population. In fact, due to abnormal selection pressures (big, flat,
color), you end up with a final product that can be very distant from
the original species. Heck, right now I have two Paph sukhakulii that
have flowers that are twice as big as anything you would find in the
jungle, and far better colored. And I love them to death. But they
don't represent the species all that well.

Now, is this good or bad? Depends. From a horticultural perspective,
probably good. Line breeding intensifies desirable characteristics. It
is certainly true that (for example) the latest generation Cattleya
walkeriana are far bigger and better formed than anything you would find
in a jungle. They are easier to grow, as well. This all leads to
increased popularity, which is excellent.

From a conservation perspective, line breeding is probably a very bad
thing. We lose characteristics (desirable or not) that we will never
get back. Once you breed an allele out of a population you can't recover
it. We might need that allele some day. Bananas (obviously they are
not orchids) have this problem, those yellow Cavendish bananas that
everybody buys at the supermarket are highly prone to a specific disease
that is spreading like wildfire. But every banana plantation on the
planet is planting an exact copy of the Cavendish banana. So there
isn't the genetic diversity out there to select a resistant clone.
Bananas are doomed!!! At least the ones we love to eat. Without some
serious genetic modifications, anyway (already in progress, have no fear).

But Mick, before your aorta pops, I'm not making a value judgment about
your plants. Any species orchid is worth keeping, line bred or not.
And the highly selected ones enhance the popularity of the species,
which is always good. But, from a purely genetic point of view, it is
probably good to also keep as many of the 'less desirable' clones as
possible, or at least the ones that represent as much of the natural
diversity as possible.


--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:36:03 -0400, Rob Halgren
wrote:

Mick Fournier wrote:
Pat,

My whole business is devoted to preserving and perpetuating the absolute
best of species. Cattleya species are especially important to me... it is
hard for me for to adequately express just how upset I am at this moment.

Oh Mick, you know I like to push buttons. I must have
found one. I
don't know about your Cattleya species, or what your breeding program is
like. And devoting your life to cattleya species is an admirable thing,
more people should be as committed to various orchid genera.

But, my point was that there has been a lot of line breeding in
cattleyas (and phalaenopsis, and paphiopedilum, and anything else that
is worth having). It is my contention, however, that line breeding of
any species leads to results that are not typical of a wild type
population. In fact, due to abnormal selection pressures (big, flat,
color), you end up with a final product that can be very distant from
the original species. Heck, right now I have two Paph sukhakulii that
have flowers that are twice as big as anything you would find in the
jungle, and far better colored. And I love them to death. But they
don't represent the species all that well.
But Mick, before your aorta pops, I'm not making a value judgment about
your plants. Any species orchid is worth keeping, line bred or not.
And the highly selected ones enhance the popularity of the species,
which is always good. But, from a purely genetic point of view, it is
probably good to also keep as many of the 'less desirable' clones as
possible, or at least the ones that represent as much of the natural
diversity as possible.

Ok - I agree with the theory Rob is talking about. But I also
know that we are not the experts on what is or is not lost in
this type of breeding.

Not long ago it was reported that a pair that both displayed the
recessive (desired) characteristic were breed and the resulting
population had 1/4 or 1/3 that reverted to the 'absent' dominant
character. This character had been "breed out" of the parents
and should not have been available to surface. Mother Nature
still has the top hand in all of this.

When we breed to intensify color or any other characteristic we
are in effect hybridizing to create a more beautiful species.
Yes, I would do it if I could. It is the nature of the beast
(man) to selective breed what he wants to see in his plants. As
long as we say species x species is still species we are going to
'beautify' the species. Heck, I would love a C. aurantiaca that
did not self before I could enjoy the color and line. I am all
for species that carry the desirable characteristics.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

Susan Erickson wrote:



Ok - I agree with the theory Rob is talking about. But I also
know that we are not the experts on what is or is not lost in
this type of breeding.

Not long ago it was reported that a pair that both displayed the
recessive (desired) characteristic were breed and the resulting
population had 1/4 or 1/3 that reverted to the 'absent' dominant
character. This character had been "breed out" of the parents
and should not have been available to surface. Mother Nature
still has the top hand in all of this.

I assume you are talking about the recent hubbub about plant genetics
that was released a few weeks ago. This gets more and more blown out of
proportion every time I hear it...

So, if I read the initial reports correctly (I'm working from a copy of
the paper), this experiment was done in Arabidopsis thaliana (a common
lab plant). The crosses were actually selfings of plants homozygous at
a given mutant recessive allele (Called 'HOTHEAD', no, i don't know
why). The mutant allele designated hth, the 'wild type' allele HTH.
So, these plants were hth/hth. The scientists noticed that a
non-trivial percentage of the offspring were hth/HTH (heterozygous).
This is, of course, not possible. *grin* However, the percentages
weren't 25-33% reversion. The authors report 10% (the number is getting
exaggerated over time).

Mendelian genetics dictates that we can only inherit the alleles that
our parents have. So, this is a really big deal. It should be
impossible for hth/hth to give rise to hth/HTH progeny. There are a
number of possible explanations given, the practical upshot of which is
there is a lot of work to be done. One of the best theories right now
is that there are long lived RNA molecules in the cell (remember,
DNA-RNA-protein) that serve as a template to 'correct' mutations at
this HOTHEAD locus. That would be interesting... But, before we throw
Gregor Mendel out the window with his peas, we need to confirm this
result for other gene loci. So far, it has only been observed at this
one. And only in arabidopsis (not in other plants, not in animals, not
anywhere else...). It can't be that common an occurance, or somebody
would have noticed it before.

Anyway, I think it is a far leap from this paper to suggest that there
is some sort of mystical force of mother nature that keeps genetic
diversity silenced in some fashion, ready for expression whenever the
plant needs it. Some small percentage of genes might have this 'backup'
capacity, but even with the best explainations we have for the hothead
phenomenon so far, this backup capacity would be corrupted or lost over
more than a few generations. I think for most purposes, mendelian
genetics will still hold. Just like for most purposes Newtonian physics
works (but we need quantum mechanics for really small stuff).

Genetics is still a complicated and mysterious thing, anybody who
claims to have it figured out hasn't been paying enough attention.


When we breed to intensify color or any other characteristic we
are in effect hybridizing to create a more beautiful species.
Yes, I would do it if I could. It is the nature of the beast
(man) to selective breed what he wants to see in his plants. As
long as we say species x species is still species we are going to
'beautify' the species. Heck, I would love a C. aurantiaca that
did not self before I could enjoy the color and line. I am all
for species that carry the desirable characteristics.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

That was exactly my point, said far more adeptly than I could. We are
hybridizing when we breed species.

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:49:46 -0400, Rob Halgren
wrote:


So, if I read the initial reports correctly (I'm working from a copy of
the paper), this experiment was done in Arabidopsis thaliana (a common
The authors report 10% (the number is getting
exaggerated over time).


Thanks for the correction and the lesson. Glad to hear it is
only one experiment and the old rules are still the rules of the
road. It was a bit of a scary thought that such things could
"come back".

SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

Rob,

Toothpick, toothpick... wake up, arise. Time to go to work again.

Mick

Hi list,

Sorry for the bother but can someone out there please give me the full
award description for Phalaenopsis Little Emperor 'Lee' AM/AOS? Thanks
very much in advance.

Cheers,
Xi

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:52:22 GMT, Xi Wang
wrote:

Hi list,

Sorry for the bother but can someone out there please give me the full
award description for Phalaenopsis Little Emperor 'Lee' AM/AOS? Thanks
very much in advance.

Cheers,
Xi
Phalaenopsis Little Emperor 'Lee' AM/AOS 82 pts
Sogo Lit-Angel x Golden Amboin

Twenty flowers of unusual and beautiful color and eight buds on
two inflorescences; sepals and petals warm apricot yellow dusted
with very fine red spots; lip rich orange, midlobe shading yellow
to white apically, side lobes bordered brightly with orange and
speckled red.
Nat. Spread 7.0
Nat Vertica 7.0
Ds-Wide 2.40
Ds-Long 3.80
Petal-Wide 3.2
Petal-Long 3.4
Ls-wide 2.2
ls-Long 3.4
Lip wide 1.6
LIp long 2.8

Exhibitor
Lee Shyh Hau, Matou, Taihas Hsien,
Taiwan, Republic of China

Judged at
South Taiwan Orchid Show, Taman Hsien,
Taiwan, Republic of China
Date awarded 4/5/1996
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php