'clonal name'?

[Erythrone]

I found this on a Ted's paphs and phrags site



Question 2, can you clone paphs and phrags? Interestingly, the answer
is yes. Or at least you can mericlone Phrag. Sedenii 'Blush' (published
in Die Orchideen quite some time ago, and repeated by Oak Hill), and
stem prop several different Paphs (anecdotally reported to me by a few
different growers who I have no reason to disbelieve). I've personally
cloned some Phrag Hanne Popow (starting from flasked material, but
still...). Mericloning paphs is not very successful. The limiting
factor for all slippers seems to be contamination, in that the meristems
are hard to get free of fungus. It can be done, but not in a reliable
fashion, and getting sufficient material to start often involves
destroying most or all of the growing points on the desired plant. The
growth media mericloning slippers hasn't been worked out, of course,
given all of the other problems. So, given that mericloning very rarely
works and is not unlikely to destroy the parent, it isn't really that
popular an option.

A grower of perennials who is in business with in vitro culture laboratories told me the same thing for Cypripedium.

 

[gonewild]

Are you sure, gonewild? I thought it was really mericloning. Jason talk about it at the Orchidophiles de Montreal meeting. But I don't undersand English very well.
Maybe Shiva remembers, if he was at the meeting.

I think I am sure? I don't know if protocorm tissue would be considered as meristem cells or not? Here is a part of a thread I found in the archives by Robert.....

" I was able to clone it at the Protocorm stage, so this is a little different compared to cloning say a Phal. In that case they take meristimatic tissue from a known plant, so they already know what the flowers will look like (usually it is an awarded plant), and make 1000's of identical plants from the one meristem. In this case I probably got about 12 to 15 seedlings to germinate from the cross of 'Rob's Choice' x 'Fire Wings'. Of these I was able to clone about 4 of the seedlings at the protocorm stage. I still did not get as many plants as when you would clone say a Phalaenopsis, but I was able to get about 100 to 200 plants from each protocorm. Was I lucky that I was able to clone this 'Iccarus', well yes there is some luck involved, but based on the parents (especially the 'Rob's Choice' which I still think to date is the best besseae out there) I don't think I could go wrong.
Robert"

 

[PaphMadMan]

Clone had a horticultural meaning long before any plant was 'mericloned' - that being all the genetically identical individuals arising from vegetative propagation, including the original plant. Even for a single plant that has yet to be propagated it has meaning, making it clear it is a genetically distinct individual. In orchids this makes a 'clonal name' completely interchangeable with the term 'cultivar'. The 'clone' is technically all the genetically identical plants as a group, or a single original plant - the plants themselves, not the name. A minor distinction most of the time.

 

[PaphMadMan]

I don't know if protocorm tissue would be considered as meristem cells or not?

A protocorm before any significant differentiation has taken place is virtually all meristem.

 

[John M]

...individual, genetically unique plant, including Paphs, which are never mericloned.

Or very very very rarely mericloned. According to Jason Fischer, it is possible, but very difficult.

Phrag besseae 'Iccarius' 3N clone:

http://www.orchidweb.com/detail.aspx?ID=1643

Please note that I said "Paphs", not Phrags because I know that some Phrags have been cloned. Phrag. Sedenii 'Blush' has been cloned from the meristematic tissue in the elongating flower stem and Phrag. besseae 'Iccarus' has been cloned from the original undiferentiated protocorm that grew from a germinating seed. I have never heard of any Paphs that have been successfully mericloned....in the true sense of the word. Stem props from an elongating rhizome or stolon in Paphs are not clones, they are divisions.

 

[Ernie]

Stem props from an elongating rhizome or stolon in Paphs are not clones, they are divisions.

Ahhh, but divisions of the original clone.

 

[Kevin]

Great discussion guys! Thanks! I've learned some new stuff here and cleared up a few things. So, it turns out I was right all along. This is what I gather so far:

1. A 'clonal name' is a name put in quotes after the species or grex name to identify a specific individual plant, not an actual 'clone', as in exact duplicates. If that plant then gets mericloned, all subsequent plants will have the same clonal name.

2. A 'varietal name' is only used taxonomically to identify varieties of species. To use the term 'variety' when talking about a specific incividual plant, is wrong - the correct term is 'clone' (even though it actually isn't a clone, in the literal definition of the word).

3. If the plant in question is in fact the only individual around of that grex, then it should have a clonal name, and if it has been mericloned, all plants in circulation should have the same clonal name.

4. If the plant in question is the only individual of that grex, and has been excessively mericloned, some of the mericlones could have come out being peloric.

Would you agree with those statements? If so, could I use your comments to reply to this person, or could you give me a link to a site that states this, a place with some authority, like the AOS or something? I've looked at AOS, and I can't seem to find this through them. Erythrone, your post from the
AOS handbook is good, but the term 'clonal variety' could lend some credence to a 'variety name' being correct, which is misleading.

Thanks again for all your help!

 

[Kevin]

At least by normal taxo nomenclature, you still don't have the parents back to the original species (and or varieties). Species names will be in lower case.

Not a biggie as far as the main issues you are concerned with on this thread, but you have what looks like a complex hybrid in this example.

John I like your serial number analogy.

Sorry, I didn't see that you wanted all the way back to the species. I can do that, if you want...kind of irrelevant, though. Yes, it is a complex hybrid.

 

[Kevin]

..

Thanks John! Excellent!

 

[Kevin]

Woops, no quote there. You know what you wrote, though.

 

[Kevin]

Ramble through History....

Back in the late 60's when tissue culture was becoming a way to propogate orchids commercially the process was called "mericloneing" and the resulting plant was called a "mericlone".

Prior to tissue culture reproduction the only was to get a replicate orchid "cultivar" of a individual plant was by dividing the plant into multiple pieces. Each piece was called a "division".

For example if you flowered a seedling cattleya plant and it was awarded then you gave it a cultivar name. At it was properly called the 'xxxx' cultivar or a specific species or hybrid. When your plant got big enough you could divide it into 2 "divisions". Each division of the plant carried the 'xxxx' cultivar name. And forever all divisions of all divisions of the cultivar have the same 'xxxx' cultivar name. But after perhaps 10 years there may only have been a handful of the 'xxxx' cultivar in existence and each one may sell for a high price because of their scarcity.

Then alone comes the mericloning process and suddenly you can take the scarce 'xxxx' cultivar and with the mericlone process make 1000 new mericlone 'xxxx' cultivars. Suddenly the 'xxxx' cultivar is not scarce anymore and so the value per plant is much less.

So what does this have to do with the word "clone"?
When tissue culture was new no one really knew for sure if the "cloned" plants were actually as true to type as a "division". The original 'xxxx' cultivar divisions had more value and appeal than the 'xxxx' mericlones.
People began to call plants made by mericloneing (tissue culture) "clones", short for mericlone.
A "division" of an awarded plant might cost $1000 and a "clone" of the same plant cost only $15.

The word "clone" was simply a descripter identifying the method of propagation used to generate the plant.
you could have
Cattelya 'xxxx' - a division of the original plant
Cattelya 'xxxx' - a clone

Then after some time passed we accepted that clones were in fact exact copies of the original plant. So the word "clone" became a word to describe the plant as belonging to group of exact replicates of a cultivar.

A "clone" is a copy of the original but it should not be used to describe the original plant that was created by seed reproduction or mutation. The original plant is the "cultivar" all others are "clones" of the cultivar.

But now the words are evolving and anything original has less importance. Now all members of a cultivar are referred to as "clones".

Awesome! Thanks Lance!

 

[Kevin]

Hi Kevin,

I read the original discussion on the other forum. One remark I have is that when you do mericlone, there is a certain amount of mutation. The two most common are pelorics and tetraploids. When those happen, they are given new clonal names, despite being mericlones.

In regards to clonal names and mericlones. Often overseas vendors don't put clonal names on thier mericlones. Maybe so buyers will buy doubles of the same orchid. There are examples of the same phal being awarded with different clonal names, because they were sold to two different people who assumed they were seed grown because of the lack of clonal name.

Kyle

Really? Did you find it through a search, or are you a member?

I am aware of the what some vendors do in this regard. This may have been what happened. It's possible that there isn't just one plant left, and that the other ones also got mericloned.

 

[John M]

Great discussion guys! Thanks! I've learned some new stuff here and cleared up a few things. So, it turns out I was right all along. This is what I gather so far:

1. A 'clonal name' is a name put in quotes after the species or grex name to identify a specific individual plant, not an actual 'clone', as in exact duplicates. If that plant then gets mericloned, all subsequent plants will have the same clonal name.

2. A 'varietal name' is only used taxonomically to identify varieties of species. To use the term 'variety' when talking about a specific incividual plant, is wrong - the correct term is 'clone' (even though it actually isn't a clone, in the literal definition of the word).

3. If the plant in question is in fact the only individual around of that grex, then it should have a clonal name, and if it has been mericloned, all plants in circulation should have the same clonal name.

4. If the plant in question is the only individual of that grex, and has been excessively mericloned, some of the mericlones could have come out being peloric.

Would you agree with those statements? If so, could I use your comments to reply to this person, or could you give me a link to a site that states this, a place with some authority, like the AOS or something? I've looked at AOS, and I can't seem to find this through them. Erythrone, your post from the
AOS handbook is good, but the term 'clonal variety' could lend some credence to a 'variety name' being correct, which is misleading.

Thanks again for all your help!

Yes Kevin, I agree with those 4 statements. You've got the hang of it now.

 

[Kevin]

Thanks. Like I said at the beginning, I do know about this stuff, but I just needed some clear explanation. I knew what it was all about, but I couldn't explain it. You've cleared a lot of things up for me, and the one thing I really didn't know is why we use the term 'clone' for something that is not, infact, a clone. That is a bit clearer now. The one thing I need now is to be able to quote someone, or a link to somewhere, so I can have some back-up for my reply to this guy.

 

[Kavanaru]

very interesting discussion...

Just one comment from my side regarding the 4th statement:

4. If the plant in question is the only individual of that grex, and has been excessively mericloned, some of the mericlones could have come out being peloric.

even thought itis 100% true, it is also half of the story, and therefore could lead to misunderstanding!
After mericloning or any othe kind of tissue cloning you can habe mutated individuals (this can happen also at the first step of cloning, but is more often seen after excesive cloning!). The most commonly seen (marketed at least) is peloric plants, but you can also have any other mutations: larger or smaller flowers, pictoteed flowers, variegated plants, non viable plants (e.g. albino plants - talking about the whole plant, not the flowers!), monstrous plants and so on...

 

[Shiva]

Are you sure, gonewild? I thought it was really mericloning. Jason talk about it at the Orchidophiles de Montreal meeting. But I don't undersand English very well.

Maybe Shiva remembers, if he was at the meeting.

I'm with Lance on this matter. The meanings of words change with time which leads eventually to confusion. I'm not a breeder of orchids and, until now, I thought that the word clone was for merriclone only. This thread has brought me up to speed. Thanks!

As for Jason Fischer's conference in Montréal, what I retained most was him saying that very few Kovachii had actually flowered in various collections. In the case of O.L., only one kovachii has flowered... twice. Now that's a sobering thought. I wonder how many members in this forum have had any success in flowering this plant. I think I'll start a new thread on this subject.

 

[Erythrone]

I thought that the word clone was for merriclone only. This thread has brought me up to speed. Thanks!

As for Jason Fischer's conference in Montréal, what I retained most was him saying that very few Kovachii had actually flowered in various collections. In the case of O.L., only one kovachii has flowered... twice. Now that's a sobering thought. I wonder how many members in this forum have had any success in flowering this plant. I think I'll start a new thread on this subject.

I've done cloning many years ago, but it was not with mericlone, but with embryo (somatic emryogenesis).

I remember what Jason said in Montreal about Phrag kovachii. It was a big surprise for me.

 

[gonewild]

Ahhh, but divisions of the original clone.

Nooooo... divisions of a plant of the clone. oke:

 

[gonewild]

very interesting discussion...

Just one comment from my side regarding the 4th statement:

even thought itis 100% true, it is also half of the story, and therefore could lead to misunderstanding!
After mericloning or any othe kind of tissue cloning you can habe mutated individuals (this can happen also at the first step of cloning, but is more often seen after excesive cloning!). The most commonly seen (marketed at least) is peloric plants, but you can also have any other mutations: larger or smaller flowers, pictoteed flowers, variegated plants, non viable plants (e.g. albino plants - talking about the whole plant, not the flowers!), monstrous plants and so on...

Yes and when any mutation is detected the plant should be given a new "clonal"(cultivar) name because it is no longer a member of the original clone and in fact know has begun it's own clone.

:crazy: Even though it is a clone cloned from a clone it is no longer a clone of the clone so it is a new clone. :crazy:

 

[Kevin]

:crazy: Even though it is a clone cloned from a clone it is no longer a clone of the clone so it is a new clone. :crazy:

Say that 10 trimes fast!:rollhappy::rollhappy:

Is that the same thing that happened to produce the harlequin Phals? I seem to remember something along those lines.