General Orchid Taxonomy

[Braem]

Messy hybrids

Eric,

that is exactly the point. Lets not forget some past disasters .... Phrag. "schlimii" Wilcox & Birchwood, some of the P. "Hanne Popow", P. Sedenii, the many plants that were awarded under a false name, then used as hybridisation parents, etc. etc. Lets remember the zillions of P. Prince Edward of York that were sold as P. sanderianum, the zillions of P. Pinocchio that were sold as P. primulinum, the P. papuanum that was (and still is) confused with P. violascence, and I could go on for another couple of hours.

But the genetic analysis gives you some indication, not a definate answer. Furthermore it is just too expensive to check the hybrids.

Guido

I have a small problem, as Heather might, that a plant which I purchased as a species is actually a hybrid. The issue of the natural mixing of besseae w/ dalessandroi will complicate the hybridization further down the road; i.e. plants registered as besseae X n are really besseae X dalessandroi X n. I have noted that plants w/ [what I consider] the real dalessendroi pick up the drooping petals and the orange/yellow color. I think some of the breeding besseae lines need to be investigated on a genetic level so sort out the besseae hybrid mess that will probably come up.

 

[Drorchid]

I have a small problem, as Heather might, that a plant which I purchased as a species is actually a hybrid. The issue of the natural mixing of besseae w/ dalessandroi will complicate the hybridization further down the road; i.e. plants registered as besseae X n are really besseae X dalessandroi X n. I have noted that plants w/ [what I consider] the real dalessendroi pick up the drooping petals and the orange/yellow color. I think some of the breeding besseae lines need to be investigated on a genetic level so sort out the besseae hybrid mess that will probably come up.

That is one of the reasons why I would like the lump Phrag. dallesandroi with Phrag. besseae. If this would be the case we would have no problem, as Phrag. besseae var besseae x Phrag. besseae var. dallesandroi would still be Phrag. besseae (and not Phrag. Jersey).

Just as an example: a lot of hybridizers, including perhaps ourselves, did not realize at the time (before 'dalesandroi' was described) that some of their "Phrag besseae" like Phrag. besseae 'Peru88' were actually Phrag. dalesandroi 'Peru88' or Phrag x Jersey 'Peru88' (natural hybrid).

(Now this is all theoretical) We may have crossed 'Peru88' with another 'true type' besseae, and the offspring of that cross may have been crossed to sargentianum to make Mem. Dick Clements, and that was crossed to a third Generation besseae (that may have been x Jersey crossed to besseae or to dalessandroi...who knows), but we called it Phrag. besseae, and the resulting hybrid was Phrag. Jason Fischer (as we believed all the besseae's were true besseae's)......you see where I am going with this.....Guido is right that a lot of the Hybrid names are not correct, just because the species used don't always have the correct names......but if we all label the besseae-dalessandroi complex as Phrag. besseae we would not have this problem.

I do agree, that if we know that if a plant is from the wild and is the dalessandroi form to keep that name with it (as Phrag. besseae var. dalessandroi), but as soon as you mix the different forms together and get 2nd, 3rd or more generations, just to call them Phrag. besseae; wouldn't you rather call it that then having Phrag Jersey x besseae x dalesandroi x Jersey x ........x besseae being some hybrid name that looks identical to a Phrag. besseae??

Robert

 

[Rick]

Eric,

that is exactly the point. Lets not forget some past disasters .... Phrag. "schlimii" Wilcox & Birchwood, some of the P. "Hanne Popow", P. Sedenii, the many plants that were awarded under a false name, then used as hybridisation parents, etc. etc. Lets remember the zillions of P. Prince Edward of York that were sold as P. sanderianum, the zillions of P. Pinocchio that were sold as P. primulinum, the P. papuanum that was (and still is) confused with P. violascence, and I could go on for another couple of hours.

But the genetic analysis gives you some indication, not a definate answer. Furthermore it is just too expensive to check the hybrids.

Guido

Guido
You also hit it in on the head as to where allot of animosity to taxonomy comes from. Breeders and conservationists don't always have the time (patience) and space to store whole populations of plants with questionable taxonomy waiting for a consensus description or taxa status. Furthermore, record keeping becomes enormously problematic when status or names change. I can realize that without good collection (source) data the description of taxa is very risky, and the divisions between taxa based on morphometric data can be a difficult Best Proffesional Judgement. But we really do count on you taxonomist guys (and gals) to draw those lines for us horticulturists, and its a big let down when the aformentioned disasters occur.

This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.

 

[Heather]

This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.

Agreed!

This has been a great thread and I hope that everyone keeps asking more questions!

I just wanted to recount a recent experience. At the MOS show someone had classified a schlimii 'Birchwood' or 'Wilcox' (I cannot recall which but the point is that it was not schlimii!) as a species. An experienced Paph. grower! It continues to amaze me that people who seriously grow paphs STILL don't know this (or care enough to classify it correctly? I don't know which.) Luckily, most of the slipper judging team knew that this needed to be included as a hybrid, and changed the classification, but it is important for all of us to learn of these past mistakes.

 

[NYEric]

Don't you mean Phrag. grower?oke:

 

[Braem]

Indentities and problems

Rick,

yes. but now we have some additional problems.

1) time: Breeders and conservationists will have to take the time to store populations with questionable taxonomy IF we want this problem sold.

2) Who tells you that the provenance given is correct. Hell, the practice of indication an "erroneous" area where the plants were allegedly collected is as old as the orchid collections in the 18th century, and many authors (including myself) will not necessarily disclose the exact area to protect the species and to protect the collector from paranoid CITES maniacs.

3) Many people, for good reasons will not disclose the provenance of their plants. If you have a beautifully flowering P. kovachii in your greenhouse, are you going to say where you got it from? (just one example) In our DNA study on Phragmipedium we have explicitly refused to say where we got our material of P. kovachii from (we included material from three wild collected plants from different sources. Most of you would be very, very surprised if I were to tell you where I got the material of said species and others such as wild collected P. exstaminodium from). I and and others will keep on doing this to protect our sources from the CITES maniacs. (Just like journalist refuse to name their sources).

The ONLY solution (I know that the screaming will start) is to scrap the old system. STOP breeding with uncertain material. Accept Hybrid registrations ONLY when the parents are positively identified by independent sources. How this can be inforced ???

What we need is a conference about the problem under co-operation with the RHS. We should have it in London.

If there is a serious attempt to do this, I will co-operate.

Guido

Guido
You also hit it in on the head as to where allot of animosity to taxonomy comes from. Breeders and conservationists don't always have the time (patience) and space to store whole populations of plants with questionable taxonomy waiting for a consensus description or taxa status. Furthermore, record keeping becomes enormously problematic when status or names change. I can realize that without good collection (source) data the description of taxa is very risky, and the divisions between taxa based on morphometric data can be a difficult Best Proffesional Judgement. But we really do count on you taxonomist guys (and gals) to draw those lines for us horticulturists, and its a big let down when the aformentioned disasters occur.

This is a very good and important thread you started because I think that a constant dialogue between taxonomy and the various groups within horticulture is required to advance all plant science.

 

[Braem]

Heather,

at the Miami Orchid Show in 1999 (or 1998 ... I forget), a plant was exhibited as P. philippinense (big label). The plant was a pure dark red complex Phragmipedium hybrid! Several people, including myself, pointed this out to the exhibitor who was a well-known orchid grower from Florida. She told us that we were wrong and refused to take the label away.

The Phrag. schlimii story is well-known. It has been ongoing since 1975 if I am not mistaken. I have written an article in Orchids about it ... but the editor removed the picture of the true schlimii!!!

Do you believe that anything surprises me?

Guido

Agreed!

This has been a great thread and I hope that everyone keeps asking more questions!

I just wanted to recount a recent experience. At the MOS show someone had classified a schlimii 'Birchwood' or 'Wilcox' (I cannot recall which but the point is that it was not schlimii!) as a species. An experienced Paph. grower! It continues to amaze me that people who seriously grow paphs STILL don't know this (or care enough to classify it correctly? I don't know which.) Luckily, most of the slipper judging team knew that this needed to be included as a hybrid, and changed the classification, but it is important for all of us to learn of these past mistakes.

 

[Heather]

Do you believe that anything surprises me?

Guido

Nope!

 

[Drorchid]

Rick,

STOP breeding with uncertain material. Accept Hybrid registrations ONLY when the parents are positively identified by independent sources. How this can be inforced ???

Guido

Guido,

Unfortunately this will be very hard to do. Breeders and Horticulturists (myself included) when they look at a plant they look for "Horticultural" properties first (and their first thought is usually not if the "Taxonomy" or "Label" is correct or not, although myself as I have a Taxonomic background always look at the label, and try to make sure it is the correct name, but not all Horticulturists think like me), so if they see something in the greenhouse that is blooming that has say amazing flowers with interesting colors or shapes, they will use that to hybridize with no matter what, and they do not care too much what the Label says it is . Off course they run into problems when they register the offspring of this plant, and usually go by what the label says (even though it may be incorrect). This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of hybrids get wrong names.

Robert

 

[NYEric]

taxonomy vs horticulture

When financial issues, similar to the ownership of dot-coms and other intellectual property, becomes important there will be a great need to correct these problems. If an owner says they have the true plant and a court backs up the claim and allows the owner to charge licensing to use the name the [defication will hit the rotary occilator]. I constantly see cases where owners of names are now collecting royalties from businesses that have been using the common name for years. [Imagine Xerox charging for using their name as a term.] I think the RHS has had their own adjenda guiding their policies so I agree a board or panel should review the plants. If there is a real problem w/ the parentage move the investigation to the genetic level.

 

[Braem]

Robert,


you can't have it both. You can't sit on a case of dynamite smoking and have my assurance that you are not going to end up with those virgins in heaven.:evil:

You tell me that there is a problem (and there is!), but you also tell me that you (and many others don't want to do anything about it). The old saying is that good medicine tastes bitter. But bitter medicine is always better than dying because of refusing to take bitter medicine.

Guido

Guido,

Unfortunately this will be very hard to do. Breeders and Horticulturists (myself included) when they look at a plant they look for "Horticultural" properties first (and their first thought is usually not if the "Taxonomy" or "Label" is correct or not, although myself as I have a Taxonomic background always look at the label, and try to make sure it is the correct name, but not all Horticulturists think like me), so if they see something in the greenhouse that is blooming that has say amazing flowers with interesting colors or shapes, they will use that to hybridize with no matter what, and they do not care too much what the Label says it is . Off course they run into problems when they register the offspring of this plant, and usually go by what the label says (even though it may be incorrect). This is probably one of the reasons why a lot of hybrids get wrong names.

Robert

 

[Braem]

Eric,

You seem to be a true believer of genetics. Again and again I have proven that genetics (with the methods of today) is NOT the non plus ultra. DNA results really can "rule out" things, they cannot "prove" things, at least not at the level we are talking about. And when we are dealing with hybrids, the problem becomes very much enlarged.

Guido

When financial issues, similar to the ownership of dot-coms and other intellectual property, becomes important there will be a great need to correct these problems. If an owner says they have the true plant and a court backs up the claim and allows the owner to charge licensing to use the name the [defication will hit the rotary occilator]. I constantly see cases where owners of names are now collecting royalties from businesses that have been using the common name for years. [Imagine Xerox charging for using their name as a term.] I think the RHS has had their own adjenda guiding their policies so I agree a board or panel should review the plants. If there is a real problem w/ the parentage move the investigation to the genetic level.

 

[Drorchid]

Robert,


you can't have it both. You can't sit on a case of dynamite smoking and have my assurance that you are not going to end up with those virgins in heaven.:evil:

You tell me that there is a problem (and there is!), but you also tell me that you (and many others don't want to do anything about it). The old saying is that good medicine tastes bitter. But bitter medicine is always better than dying because of refusing to take bitter medicine.

Guido

Guido,

You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.

Luckily for you I am both a Scientist/Taxonomist and a Horticulturist, so for me the Label is very important, and I always want to make sure the plant that I am using for my breeding work has the correct label, so it would be nice if there was a way or a system in place if People can verify that the parents that they are using have the right names before they register them with the RHS. Unfortunately this will just add to the bureaucracy. Perhaps one easy way of doing that is that a person has to include pictures of the parents.

Robert

 

[NYEric]

Mr. Braem, from the list of Phrag. besseae hybrids I've noted in my collection [I hope they're besseae] you can see that we are into f5 x f5 hybrids. Of course as we mix in more besseae the lines will blur. At a certain point we wont be able to look at a hybrid and determine what is in it. I personally wont care as long as it looks good but suppose Jason Fischer is allowed to charge vendors a penny royalty for every plant sold with his name on it. You can bet your @$$ that I'm going to determine that my plants are really dalessandroi x Mem. Dick Clemens. [Of course then I'll have Dennis to deal with..Yikes!] oke:

 

[Heather]

See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true besseae var. dalessandroi or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!

Speaking of the philippinense mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!)

Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.

 

[Rick]

My impression of the process of describing a new taxa (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Is that it is a race done by individuals or small closed teams of individuals. The primary tool is morphometric analysis, and sometimes population analysis is added.

Once the new taxon is described in print (is there a peer review process?), then it seems like other taxonomists get there shot at accepting or debunking the status (over a long period of time).

Is it possible (or is it already being done) that new material be passed around to several taxonomists, population biologists, and DNA analyists all at one time before a new taxa gets officially described?

Scientific methods to differentiate will always continue to improve, but it may make the first name more robust for a longer time to develop new species lables by consensus.

 

[Braem]

Botany/horticulture

Robert,

OK. But the "gods" of Taxonomy, at the two last congresses, have incorporated horticulture (at least in part) into the Code and thus into the rules. But horticulture cannot on the one side say: "Hey we want to be into the deal" and on the other side "But we don't give a hoot about what the taxonomists do."
Either you are in, or you are out. And if you are in, you have to live with us. And if you live with us, you have to accept that we MUST change the names if there is scientific reason to do so. Admittedly, not all the name changes prove to be correct, but a lot are.

Including pictures of the parents is just not ernough. Who garantees that the pictures are the pictures of the real parents. And again, if we don't do away with the past, the future will not work either. etc. etc.
It is like using wood that is already rotten to build a new house.


I should not be writing this at 2:30 AM. Even taxonomists get tired.

Guido

Guido,

You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.

Luckily for you I am both a Scientist/Taxonomist and a Horticulturist, so for me the Label is very important, and I always want to make sure the plant that I am using for my breeding work has the correct label, so it would be nice if there was a way or a system in place if People can verify that the parents that they are using have the right names before they register them with the RHS. Unfortunately this will just add to the bureaucracy. Perhaps one easy way of doing that is that a person has to include pictures of the parents.

Robert

 

[Braem]

Problems

Eric,

first of all, in my opinion NO living organism, be it Monera, Protista, Fungus, Plant or Animal or any variety, form, part, or product thereof should be subject to any patent or the like. The Fauna and Flora of this world belongs to nature, not to any humans. (I guess I will be accused of being a philosopher again).

secondly, I know both Jason and Dennis. Therefore, I will refrain from commenting on who would be more difficult to deal with.

Thirdly, I don't think that with the present methods anyone can positively determine a hybrid beyond F1 (and I have my doubts about F1 as well).

and lastly, you can bet your @$$, that there is no court in the world who will need less than 10 years to find a decison on whether P. dalessandroi and P. besseae are conspecific or not. So, why worry?
If I were a commercial grower and would make "P. Jason Fisher", and someone would sue me for royalties, all that I would say: Prove that my plants are "P. Jason Fisher", prove that I made them, and prove that I sold them knowing that I did wrong (that are the criteria over here).

I want to see anyone, whether Jason, Dennis, Jane Doo or Micky Mouse take me to court because of a 10 cent royalty for a plant.

Afterthought: we should not worry about the possible madness of certain lawyers and judicial systems. We should get taxonomy straightened out and give the horticulturists names they can rely on. And the horticulturists should breed with properly identified plants and forget anything that is old and rotten.

The P. besseae problem is but one example. But it is not that easy to solve. Even if you put dalessandroi togetter with besseae again, you still have "varieties" or "forms" that breed differently.

Guido

Mr. Braem, from the list of Phrag. besseae hybrids I've noted in my collection [I hope they're besseae] you can see that we are into f5 x f5 hybrids. Of course as we mix in more besseae the lines will blur. At a certain point we wont be able to look at a hybrid and determine what is in it. I personally wont care as long as it looks good but suppose Jason Fischer is allowed to charge vendors a penny royalty for every plant sold with his name on it. You can bet your @$$ that I'm going to determine that my plants are really dalessandroi x Mem. Dick Clemens. [Of course then I'll have Dennis to deal with..Yikes!] oke:

 

[Braem]

Heather,

no-one tires me that fast, but it is 3 AM and I will allow myself of asking you to wait for a decent answer until later today.

But anyway, I am pretty glad that I seem to have started a discussion that is accepted by quite a few.

Guido

See? I totally disagree with Eric. I want to know what I have so I don't mess up any gene pools (not that I really do any breeding but...) It makes me crazy not knowing whether I have a true besseae var. dalessandroi or some "hybrid". Same with the philippinense mess. Ugh. You can bet if I ever bought a Cardinale labeled as "schlimii 'Wilcox' " I'd be changing that tag faster than you could blink!

Speaking of the philippinense mess, Dr. Braem, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on that as well. I find it is often easier to tell a philippinense vs. a var. roebellinii based on plant habit rather than the flowers. It all seems so nebulous! (People here are really tired of me asking about this but you're new here so I have yet to tire you, I hope!)

Thank you, this is a great thread which I am really enjoying learning from.

 

[Braem]

Dear Robert,

Sorry that I misunderstood you. Yes, something MUST be done. And yes, it will be difficult. But we should try. And how can we do it. I really thing this should be the topic for a major conference. Maybe we can use this forum as a platform to propagate it (of course if we get the permission of the webmasters). I think it is a big task. But if we don't start it, we won't change it.

Guido

Guido,

You misunderstood me. I think something does need to be done, I just said it would be difficult to do. I just was trying to say that horticulturists look at a plant differently than a Taxonomist. To most horticulturists the "properties" of the plant are more important than the "name" of the plant; they don't care less if it is called "A" or "B", just if it has value to them.

Luckily for you I am both a Scientist/Taxonomist and a Horticulturist, so for me the Label is very important, and I always want to make sure the plant that I am using for my breeding work has the correct label, so it would be nice if there was a way or a system in place if People can verify that the parents that they are using have the right names before they register them with the RHS. Unfortunately this will just add to the bureaucracy. Perhaps one easy way of doing that is that a person has to include pictures of the parents.

Robert