line bred Phrag. Memoria Dick Clements

[Drorchid]

For me, by sibling two MDC’s you show me than the result is going to be something between a Jason Fischer and a Jerry Dean Fischer. And I do agree to that!
But what is going to be the improvement in hybridization?
Why not simply use a FCC MDC with a better or an FCC besseae or sargentianum?

I agree that would be a good way as well to improve a MDC. The reason I did not do that because I did not have a FCC sargentianum (otherwise I would have) and #2 I have a background in breeding, so just wanted to try out this technique to see if the flowers would improve, and they did! Line Breeding is a technique a lot of breeders, including animal breeders use to improve their lines.

By crossing them back with besseae, sorry I will not call it a Jason Fischer anymore… It’s going to be something between a Scarlet O'Hara and MDC…

Even though it may look like something between a Scarlet O'Hara and a MDC, When I cross a 3rd generation line bred Memoria Dick Clements with a besseae it will still be called a Phrag. Jason Fischer! If we would start calling it something else the rules of naming hybrids would get too complicated. When we originally made Scarlet O'Hara we crossed a 4N besseae with a 2N Jason Fischer, it looked very different from when we crossed a 2N besseae to a 4N Jason Fischer, but they were all 3N Scarlet O'Hara's, just because Jason Fischer x besseae = Scarlet O'Hara.

Robert

 

[Kevin]

Lets assume we are working with diploid (2N) parents. When you create an F1 Hybrid between two species (in this case Memoria Dick Clements is a hybrid between Phrag. besseae and Phrag. sargentianum) you get 50% of the genes from one species and 50 % from the other species. In general most of these F1 plants will look very similar to one another. Even if you recreate the same primary cross using other parents they will still resemble each other. Now what I did was crossing two of these F1 plants together. What you get is segregation of genes and recombination, so instead of a 50/50 split of genes from both species, you can get a whole array of segregation; one plant can be 40/60 while another 55/45 etc. In the case of Mem. Dick Clements, some plants will resemble the sargentianum plant while others will resemble the besseae plant. In the picture I showed of Mem. Dick Clements 'Superior' there are probably more besseae genes that accumulated for flower shape resulting in wider and rounder petals.

Line breeding is just a breeding method that you can either do within a species or within a hybrid grex (this is often done in Phalaenopsis breeding). In this case I could be breeding for flowers that are larger and have rounder petals, but still have the branching charcteristic of sargentianum. from my F2 population I would select the 2 parents that fit these goals the best, and cross them together to create my F3 population, Again within the F3 population I would select for plants that have larger and rounder petals and branch a lot. Again I would cross the 2 best plants to create my F4 population. After each population I would see more plants that have larger and rounder flowers with high flower count per branch. As in each generation I am crossing a Mem. Dick Clements with a Mem. Dick Clements they still would be called Phrag. Mem. Dick Clements.

Robert

Yeah, I do get the basics, but I would have thought that you would have started with two plants that had different flowers to get a different result. In the F2 and F3, you would, as you stated, choose the flowers that had the best characteristics that you are looking for in breeding. In the initial cross, is it just luck that you would get a flower with any certain trait? For example, you said that you only got a few of these seedlings to flower, and they were mostly the same. Shouldn't at least a few of them been different - more towards the sargentianum? If you make this same cross again, using the same parents, could you get mostly plants favouring the sargentianum that time?

Also, just curious - do you have any idea how many Phrag or even Paph hybrids have been line-bred? Is it common? I thought most breeders just re-make the cross, like J.P. is saying.

 

[Phrag-Plus]

Also, just curious - do you have any idea how many Phrag or even Paph hybrids have been line-bred? Is it common? I thought most breeders just re-make the cross, like J.P. is saying.

As I know, Phragmipedium line breeding was use almost only with species, to my knowledge, only few with primary hybrid. I don’t think many breeders use this method with Phragmipedium crosses.

Line breeding was use a lot with Paphiopedilum the result is the complex (bulldog).

 

[Phrag-Plus]

I agree that would be a good way as well to improve a MDC. The reason I did not do that because I did not have a FCC sargentianum (otherwise I would have) and #2 I have a background in breeding, so just wanted to try out this technique to see if the flowers would improve, and they did! Line Breeding is a technique a lot of breeders, including animal breeders use to improve their lines.Robert

I can understand the reason and the temptation of doing line breeding, but I’m still convicted than it’s a non suitable avenue in Phragmipediums breeding. But I do agree it is always a question of point of view and conviction.

When I cross a 3rd generation line bred Memoria Dick Clements with a besseae it will still be called a Phrag. Jason Fischer! If we would start calling it something else the rules of naming hybrids would get too complicated.
Robert

For me a sib cross from a registered hybrid will never get the same rank of the true standard cross. For me a standard is a standard and should stay a standard. And unfortunately they will keep the same name. In the future registration will stay not complicated but identification and recognition of a cross is going to be very difficult.

 

[Drorchid]

Yeah, I do get the basics, but I would have thought that you would have started with two plants that had different flowers to get a different result. In the F2 and F3, you would, as you stated, choose the flowers that had the best characteristics that you are looking for in breeding. In the initial cross, is it just luck that you would get a flower with any certain trait? For example, you said that you only got a few of these seedlings to flower, and they were mostly the same. Shouldn't at least a few of them been different - more towards the sargentianum? If you make this same cross again, using the same parents, could you get mostly plants favouring the sargentianum that time?

Also, just curious - do you have any idea how many Phrag or even Paph hybrids have been line-bred? Is it common? I thought most breeders just re-make the cross, like J.P. is saying.

It is true that initially you start out with two different flowers. In this case it was a Phrag. besseae crossed to a Phrag. sargentianum. In the resulting F1 population (Mem. DIck Clements), the variation between plants is pretty low, and that is why I crossed two of them to get my F2 population. You are right that some of them should have been different, but I think my sample was too small (The initial number of seedlings was small and I think we sold a bunch before I got to see them all bloom).

With Phrag breeding thus far I know it is only done with species, we do it ourselves with our besseae breeding, and I know Terry Root does a lot of line breeding, especially when he bred his besseae's. Frank Smith does a lot of line breeding too, but he does it in mainly with his Paph's (with his leuchochilums he has done more than 8 generations).

Robert

 

[Leo Schordje]

Robert, I am going to repeat what you have said, with a slightly different emphasis. Maybe that will help.

One's goals determine what crosses you make. If you want a large crop of seedlings that all have very uniform flowers, you make a hybrid, or with a species, an outcross, using unrelated plants. This is the logical cross if you need money for the near future mortgage payment. These plants will sell well.

If you are breeding for creating a plant with specific traits, for use in your future breeding program, then line breeding (including x self) becomes a good choice. Especially when the plant you are selfing, or the siblings of the same grex that you cross have the best expression of the traits you are after. You have to work with what you have available. This type of cross does not sell as well, and you need to raise a large batch to flowering to select out the best of the bunch. This is a cross that only breeders that are not too worried about making the next mortgage payment can afford to make.

Line breeding including selfing and sibbing, will pay off several generations down the road. Line breeding was key in creating the big full form with wide dorsal & sepals unifoliate Cattleya. Line breeding also is responsible for modern waterfall Miltoniopsis. Other groups that depended on repeated selfings and line breeding in general include Cymbidium, complex Paphs, and Phalaenopsis. In Phals line breeding is how they stabilized colors, white, pink, yellow, red, 'Hilo Lip', stripes and harlequins. All were improved by line breeding. It is a very important tool in the breeder's bag of tricks. To not use line breeding would be to limit the potential for future improvement.

Phrag breeding has finally matured enough that it has largely exhausted the primary hybrids. 3rd and 4th generation hybrids are what sell now. Remaking a diploid Eric Young for a commercial firm would simply add to the compost pile. The old primaries don't sell. So now is the time when the tool of line breeding should come into play. You will see many commercial breeders begin line breeding programs if they haven't already started. Robert is one of the very few breeders to share his strategy, most are doing line breeding more quietly. The improvements will be seen in the future, and I for one am looking forward to seeing them.

 

[Drorchid]

Robert, I am going to repeat what you have said, with a slightly different emphasis. Maybe that will help.

One's goals determine what crosses you make. If you want a large crop of seedlings that all have very uniform flowers, you make a hybrid, or with a species, an outcross, using unrelated plants. This is the logical cross if you need money for the near future mortgage payment. These plants will sell well.

If you are breeding for creating a plant with specific traits, for use in your future breeding program, then line breeding (including x self) becomes a good choice. Especially when the plant you are selfing, or the siblings of the same grex that you cross have the best expression of the traits you are after. You have to work with what you have available. This type of cross does not sell as well, and you need to raise a large batch to flowering to select out the best of the bunch. This is a cross that only breeders that are not too worried about making the next mortgage payment can afford to make.

Line breeding including selfing and sibbing, will pay off several generations down the road. Line breeding was key in creating the big full form with wide dorsal & sepals unifoliate Cattleya. Line breeding also is responsible for modern waterfall Miltoniopsis. Other groups that depended on repeated selfings and line breeding in general include Cymbidium, complex Paphs, and Phalaenopsis. In Phals line breeding is how they stabilized colors, white, pink, yellow, red, 'Hilo Lip', stripes and harlequins. All were improved by line breeding. It is a very important tool in the breeder's bag of tricks. To not use line breeding would be to limit the potential for future improvement.

Phrag breeding has finally matured enough that it has largely exhausted the primary hybrids. 3rd and 4th generation hybrids are what sell now. Remaking a diploid Eric Young for a commercial firm would simply add to the compost pile. The old primaries don't sell. So now is the time when the tool of line breeding should come into play. You will see many commercial breeders begin line breeding programs if they haven't already started. Robert is one of the very few breeders to share his strategy, most are doing line breeding more quietly. The improvements will be seen in the future, and I for one am looking forward to seeing them.

:clap::clap: well said!

Robert

 

[slippertalker]

Sib crossing of Saint Ouen and Hanne Popow type flowers has been done by Terry Root to create versions of this cross in multiple colors ranging from white to yellow to orange to red. He took pale forms sibbed them and came up with a few that were pure white. It seems that this idea has some merit.
Likewise, taking the largest or the best shaped flowers will usually contribute towards an improvement.

In primary type paphs, Maudiae has been made many times as a sib cross especially with the vinicolor version to create much larger vinicolored flowers. Similar efforts have been done with things like Paph Macabre to produce even better versions. Sib crossings have also been made with selected versions of complex paphs of things like Paph Hellas, Winston Churchill, and Lippewunder to make flowers that can be superior to the original cross.

 

[KyushuCalanthe]

hopefully the shape of the Jason Fischer will improve as well!

Unfortunately, as people age they invariably lose quality of their shape....:rollhappy:

line bred Phrag. M.D. Clements 'Superior':

Indeed, superior in every way!

 

[JeanLux]

Unfortunately, as people age they invariably lose quality of their shape....:rollhappy:

Indeed, superior in every way!

Very interesting discussion, thanks!!!! As to this result I completely agree with Tom!!!! Jean

 

[Phrag-Plus]

Robert, I am going to repeat what you have said, with a slightly different emphasis. Maybe that will help.

One's goals determine what crosses you make. If you want a large crop of seedlings that all have very uniform flowers, you make a hybrid, or with a species, an outcross, using unrelated plants. This is the logical cross if you need money for the near future mortgage payment. These plants will sell well.

If you are breeding for creating a plant with specific traits, for use in your future breeding program, then line breeding (including x self) becomes a good choice. Especially when the plant you are selfing, or the siblings of the same grex that you cross have the best expression of the traits you are after. You have to work with what you have available. This type of cross does not sell as well, and you need to raise a large batch to flowering to select out the best of the bunch. This is a cross that only breeders that are not too worried about making the next mortgage payment can afford to make.

Line breeding including selfing and sibbing, will pay off several generations down the road. Line breeding was key in creating the big full form with wide dorsal & sepals unifoliate Cattleya. Line breeding also is responsible for modern waterfall Miltoniopsis. Other groups that depended on repeated selfings and line breeding in general include Cymbidium, complex Paphs, and Phalaenopsis. In Phals line breeding is how they stabilized colors, white, pink, yellow, red, 'Hilo Lip', stripes and harlequins. All were improved by line breeding. It is a very important tool in the breeder's bag of tricks. To not use line breeding would be to limit the potential for future improvement.

Phrag breeding has finally matured enough that it has largely exhausted the primary hybrids. 3rd and 4th generation hybrids are what sell now. Remaking a diploid Eric Young for a commercial firm would simply add to the compost pile. The old primaries don't sell. So now is the time when the tool of line breeding should come into play. You will see many commercial breeders begin line breeding programs if they haven't already started. Robert is one of the very few breeders to share his strategy, most are doing line breeding more quietly. The improvements will be seen in the future, and I for one am looking forward to seeing them.

I’m agreeing with you than line breeding was and still an important and very effective methods to improve hybridization in species, families of orchids, daylilies, roses etc….
I’m still believe it is an effective method when the flowers share similarities in forms, structures, chromosomes count etc…

As you said, It could be a mercantile way to do some breeding but I’m still uncomfortable to see MDC ‘Superior’ when it is a X MDC.

 

[Ernie]

but I’m still uncomfortable to see MDC ‘Superior’ when it is a X MDC.

IMO it's the seller's/hybridizer's responsibility to announce this on the plant's name tag as (MDC X sib) or (MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y') etc. And good luck having the hybrid registration rules changed!

 

[Drorchid]

IMO it's the seller's/hybridizer's responsibility to announce this on the plant's name tag as (MDC X sib) or (MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y') etc. And good luck having the hybrid registration rules changed!

Question for you as a Judge, when you enter a plant like this, one of things you have to enter are the parents of the plant shown. In this case are you saying you should enter it as MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y'? I always was under the impression that you had to enter the parent species (or hybrid/s) of the "grex" cross, so as Phrag. Mem. Dick Clements is considered besseae x sargentianum, that is what you enter for the parent species. Don't get me wrong, I would think it would be better to enter MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y', so the judges know it is a sib cross instead of an F1 hybrid, and can judge accordingly.

Robert

 

[Phrag-Plus]

IMO it's the seller's/hybridizer's responsibility to announce this on the plant's name tag as (MDC X sib) or (MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y') etc. And good luck having the hybrid registration rules changed!

Completely agreeing with you!
MDC x sib will be correct for me... Or MDC x sib 'superior' .

This may be seems a kind of touchy for certain persons, maybe less for others but we should keep a minimum of rigor for the next generation of breeders an hybridization.

 

[slippertalker]

MDC will usually be shown as the original grex, not the reverse cross or a sibling cross. That seems to be a fault of the judging system, but it is true of the hybrid registration system also. If I was on a team that judged such a plant, I would note in the description that it was from a sibling cross.

There are historical problems also with RHS registrations especially when "special" forms of species are used in hybridization. They are not noted even though it is obvious that different forms create different progeny. It is too late to go back......

 

[Shiva]

MDC will usually be shown as the original grex, not the reverse cross or a sibling cross. That seems to be a fault of the judging system, but it is true of the hybrid registration system also. If I was on a team that judged such a plant, I would note in the description that it was from a sibling cross.

There are historical problems also with RHS registrations especially when "special" forms of species are used in hybridization. They are not noted even though it is obvious that different forms create different progeny. It is too late to go back......

Now why is it too late to go back? Maybe it's too late for older hybrids but why shouldn't we change the rules of nomination now that we know better? The whole orchid nomenclature field has been in flux for years. The astronomer Copernic put the Sun at the center of the Solar System two thousand years after the Greeks claimed the Earth was at the center. There were many who didn't want to move on but they had to anyway. :viking:

 

[Drorchid]

MDC will usually be shown as the original grex, not the reverse cross or a sibling cross. That seems to be a fault of the judging system, but it is true of the hybrid registration system also. If I was on a team that judged such a plant, I would note in the description that it was from a sibling cross.

There are historical problems also with RHS registrations especially when "special" forms of species are used in hybridization. They are not noted even though it is obvious that different forms create different progeny. It is too late to go back......

Actually when you have a special "form" of a species, ore even of a hybrid (say a 4N plant, or a different colored form like the new coerulea violaceae's) and you recreate an old hybrid the RHS will give it a "sub grex" below the regular grex. For instance when Rob from Saphire Orchids crossed Phal. equestris var cyanochilus X Phal. violacea coerulea the RHS considiered it to be different enough from the regular Equaleceae to give it the new sub grex: Sapphire's Indigo Equalacea, so plants from this cross are known as Phal. Equalecea subgrex Sapphire's Indigo Equalacea.

Robert

 

[Drorchid]

Now why is it too late to go back? Maybe it's too late for older hybrids but why shouldn't we change the rules of nomination now that we know better? The whole orchid nomenclature field has been in flux for years. The astronomer Copernic put the Sun at the center of the Solar System two thousand years after the Greeks claimed the Earth was at the center. There were many who didn't want to move on but they had to anyway. :viking:

I agree :clap: :clap: , but like mentioned above the RHS has made changes for new crosses.

Robert

 

[slippertalker]

I agree :clap: :clap: , but like mentioned above the RHS has made changes for new crosses.

Robert

While perhaps clarity is created on one hand, naming different versions of the same cross with different grex names will also cause confusion down the road as taxonomy changes. It is sort of a catch-22, and there is no way to change the past. It is an imperfect system with no simple way of fixing changes as they happen, but it is the best (and only) system we have.

I have more problems with name changes that are based on taxonomy that is unsettled and not given a bit of time to gain a bit more solidity.

 

[Ernie]

Question for you as a Judge, when you enter a plant like this, one of things you have to enter are the parents of the plant shown. In this case are you saying you should enter it as MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y'? I always was under the impression that you had to enter the parent species (or hybrid/s) of the "grex" cross, so as Phrag. Mem. Dick Clements is considered besseae x sargentianum, that is what you enter for the parent species. Don't get me wrong, I would think it would be better to enter MDC 'X' X MDC 'Y', so the judges know it is a sib cross instead of an F1 hybrid, and can judge accordingly.

Robert

Yes, the entry sheet provides space for the parents. I'd put MDC 'X' and MDC 'Y' instead of bess x sarg. Neither is technically wrong, but if you do bess x sarg, the chances of the judges saying "this isn't a MDC" and sending it away is higher.

A reminder for judges- check the tag in the pot versus the entry form.