Paph herrmannii

[Rick]

Even DNA anaylsis as being done right now with Cattleya won't tell you much.

A species, even if it is of hybrid origin in the distant past is still a good species.Hermanii may very well be a good species just as ancient in lineage as heleneae or henryanum.

What constitutes recent vs distant?:evil: How soon will orchid hybridizers get to call their crosses "species"?:evil:

Actually I agree with you Leo on the basis of the observed uniformity and the probability that such hybridzation was/is not "recent". But from the mutation standpoint we don't call albinos and melanistics new species either.

The true definition of species is based on population demographics and not identification metrics (taxonomy) so it could be a "true" species if there are self supporting populations of hermanii. If its an occaisional oddball that pops up in a group of some other self supporting species I'd look for mutant variety or recent hybridization.

 

[Leo Schordje]

What constitutes recent vs distant?:evil: .

Several thousand years Actually there are mechanisms that have been documented in nature, that allow what has been termed as cataclysmic evolution, where a new species can arise in as little as 3 generations. Its complicated, but the end result is a species genetically isolated from the parental species with its own unique chromosome count. This chromosomal count will make back breeding to the source species infertile. Search; amphidiploidy (in genetic evolution textbooks) So the time frame does not have to be long, but this is an extroidinarily rare phenomena, so the usual genetic drift and population isolation theory is the one that most likely dominates, and for this we are talking thousands and 10's of thousands of years.

:evil: How soon will orchid hybridizers get to call their crosses "species"?:evil:

Only when their new creation gets out of the greenhouse and starts breeding on its own. See the discussions of Paph x yappianum and Paph x jogjae. Both are man made hybrids that have escaped into the wilds of Indonesia, and have begun reproducing a stable wild population. The history is fairly well documented, I don't know when naturalized hybrid would be considered a species by taxonomists. In Hawaii quite a number of hybrids have escaped, and naturalized. A taxonomic nightmare is lurking out there. A good question for Braem or Christiansen.

Actually I agree with you Leo on the basis of the observed uniformity and the probability that such hybridzation was/is not "recent". But from the mutation standpoint we don't call albinos and melanistics new species either.

Key with albinos and melanistics is that they only differ by ONE trait, that of color. Color generally has never been considered a significant trait by itself, though it can be a key trait when included in a constelation of traits.

The true definition of species is based on population demographics and not identification metrics (taxonomy) so it could be a "true" species if there are self supporting populations of hermanii. If its an occaisional oddball that pops up in a group of some other self supporting species I'd look for mutant variety or recent hybridization.

Sorry Rick, this statement is NOT quite true as stated. The job of assigning names to species is by Int. Commitee on Botanical Nomenclature rules as published in its journal TAXON, the naming job is still assigned to Taxonomists. Unfortunately the Taxonomist's definition of species is still based on the metrics of a single specimen, which is identified as the TYPE SPECIMEN. As Guido would say; "Period - Full Stop". Now you and I agree that the geneticist's and evolutionary biologist's definition of species looks more like what you state is the "True" definition of species. BUT as of this point in time, the rules for validly naming a species are 100% under the control of the Taxonomists, and are based on the METRICS of a SINGLE SPECIMEN. Fortunately, most new taxonomy grads are also versed in Evolutionary Biology, and they try as best as they can to use the evolutionary genetics based definitions when they can, and like Averyanov did in his book, allong with the single type specimen he included measurements from 50 additional individuals in his species description. But this is still not absolutely required by the ICBN and the rest of the scientific community. So even today, I could take a single specimen, make a pressed herbarium sheet, and describe a new species. Witness Paph dixlerianum, described from a single specimen purchased in a village market in Burma and never found again. (likely an Orchid Zone bred suhkakuli hybrid that found it's way into the hands of a Burmese peasant farmer, then sold as something new to the American tourist)

Hope I haven't beaten this one to death. Or gotten too far out over my ski's, it has been 32 years since I sat in Dr. James F. Crow's genetics class, and I may have "mis-remembered".

Leo

 

[JeanLux]

....
Only when their new creation gets out of the greenhouse and starts breeding on its own. See the discussions of Paph x yappianum and Paph x jogjae. Both are man made hybrids that have escaped into the wilds of Indonesia, and have begun reproducing a stable wild population. The history is fairly well documented, I don't know when naturalized hybrid would be considered a species by taxonomists. In Hawaii quite a number of hybrids have escaped, and naturalized. A taxonomic nightmare is lurking out there. A good question for Braem or Christiansen.
...

Leo

Leo, Rick: I am glad, that my small herrmannii, which I purchased at 18 Euro, brings up this extremely interesting discussion.

My pure amateur point of view is that,

to me it looks somewhat perverse, that, when we are loosing natural species of orchids and other by numbers each year, people think to be able to create new species by hybridizing !!! I am trying to have as many botanical species and few hybrids in my collection as possible. I am experimenting this since +/- 20 years now, with all the frustation going along because (so-called) botanicals seem to be more difficult to grow than hybrids, and because hybrids bring up very often flowers that are uncredibly more beautiful than their pure parents!!!

and I am not at all appreciating the move of some orchid from one species to another / new one , or even to another / new genera!!

but I am only an amateur!!!!

Jean

 

[Rick]

Several thousand years Actually there are mechanisms that have been documented in nature, that allow what has been termed as cataclysmic evolution, where a new species can arise in as little as 3 generations. Its complicated, but the end result is a species genetically isolated from the parental species with its own unique chromosome count. This chromosomal count will make back breeding to the source species infertile. Search; amphidiploidy (in genetic evolution textbooks) So the time frame does not have to be long, but this is an extroidinarily rare phenomena.

This may not be so rare as you think. I can think of a handfull of reptile cases were hybridization has resulted in populations of parthenogenic polyploids. I was agreeing with you in general, but just playing devils advocate.

Key with albinos and melanistics is that they only differ by ONE trait, that of color. Color generally has never been considered a significant trait by itself, though it can be a key trait when included in a constelation of traits..

One trait that we can see. I've noticed that albinos often have some other subtle differences from the normal form.

Sorry Rick, this statement is NOT quite true as stated. The job of assigning names to species is by Int. Commitee on Botanical Nomenclature rules as published in its journal TAXON, the naming job is still assigned to Taxonomists. Unfortunately the Taxonomist's definition of species is still based on the metrics of a single specimen, which is identified as the TYPE SPECIMEN. As Guido would say; "Period - Full Stop". Now you and I agree that the geneticist's and evolutionary biologist's definition of species looks more like what you state is the "True" definition of species. BUT as of this point in time, the rules for validly naming a species are 100% under the control of the Taxonomists, and are based on the METRICS of a SINGLE SPECIMEN. Fortunately, most new taxonomy grads are also versed in Evolutionary Biology, and they try as best as they can to use the evolutionary genetics based definitions when they can, and like Averyanov did in his book, allong with the single type specimen he included measurements from 50 additional individuals in his species description. But this is still not absolutely required by the ICBN and the rest of the scientific community. So even today, I could take a single specimen, make a pressed herbarium sheet, and describe a new species. Witness Paph dixlerianum, described from a single specimen purchased in a village market in Burma and never found again. (likely an Orchid Zone bred suhkakuli hybrid that found it's way into the hands of a Burmese peasant farmer, then sold as something new to the American tourist)

This is where the debate is fiercest, and this goes back to Darwin. In his view the division of species by metrics is totally arbitrary. Obviously we can go back to Linaeus when taxonomy by visual similarities ruled the day, but the classic text book definition of species includes the caveat of population demographics, which is generally ignored by most taxonomists. Taxonomists convieniently forget this (it really is a pain to go to the jungle and get the true story) hence you get taxonomy based on metrics of a single individual. But that is really a misrepresentation of what a species is truly meant to be.

I agree that the naming of species is under the jurisdiction of taxonomists, but I disagree that the outcome of naming necessarily meets the definition of a species.

 

[Leo Schordje]

Jean,
I do believe your plant of Paph hermanii is a species. I hope you did not think I was implying your plant was a man made hybrid. I do believe it is a species, and a very lovely one at that. The discussion with Rick and myself was ranging far off topic from the photo you had published.
Leo

 

[JeanLux]

Jean,
I do believe your plant of Paph hermanii is a species. I hope you did not think I was implying your plant was a man made hybrid. I do believe it is a species, and a very lovely one at that. The discussion with Rick and myself was ranging far off topic from the photo you had published.
Leo

Leo, thank you! I appreciate this discussion a lot, and I just wanted to bring in my 'simpler' point of view!

Jean

 

[Leo Schordje]

Hey Rick,
Truely, you and do agree on the end principles. BUT - let us not get the historical cart before the horse when explaining it. Darwin never did live long enough to read the "Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory" that you and I are referring to. Charles Darwin would not recognize most of what we are talking about. In 1852 - 1863(?) when Darwin was writing and re-writing Origin of the Species the concept of species he was using was the concept outlined by Carl Linnaeus some 75 years earlier. Linnaeus uses a visual metrics based system. To this day, by the ICBN rules, the outcome of naming a single type specimen DOES in FACT describe a species. I even called Eric Christiansen to check my thoughts on this. Where your comment becomes correct in is the AFTERWARDS, will this name stand up to peer review and be accepted? Here, at this point, the review, you and I are in 100% agreement. Observations of population characteristics will either support the species name as defined or relegate it to the "steaming pile of discarded nomenclature". (I am paraphrasing Dilbert joke, where a project was referred to as a "Steaming Pile of Failure"). It is in the peer review phase, where the population demographics and genetic cladistics really come in. Idealy a modern author of the highest caliber, such as Averyanov, will have published in support of the single specimen, a whole host of population data. For a name to be accepted, I agree with you - it needs to make sense in a geographic, population, and genetic sense. It needs to have a logical place in the world. (this does leave us with the disatisfying truth that 18th century still holds sway today in taxonomy)
Leo

 

[Rick]

Hey Rick,
Darwin never did live long enough to read the "Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory" that you and I are referring to. Charles Darwin would not recognize most of what we are talking about. In 1852 - 1863(?) when Darwin was writing and re-writing Origin of the Species the concept of species he was using was the concept outlined by Carl Linnaeus some 75 years earlier. Linnaeus uses a visual metrics based system.

The reference to Charles Darwin about the arbitrary nature of the Linnaeus method is taken from the Origion of Species. So apparently he wasn't clueless about the principles that his work ultimately developed. The concept of what constitutes a species has been argued about for centeries. Darwin's comments continue that the use of describing species by metrics is simply a matter of convienience (probably recognizing that its hard to get into the jungle to fully understand the demographics).

Wikepedia has a good general review of the debate (covers just about everything we've discussed). Just google "species definition".

 

[PaphMadMan]

This is where the debate is fiercest, and this goes back to Darwin. In his view the division of species by metrics is totally arbitrary. Obviously we can go back to Linaeus when taxonomy by visual similarities ruled the day, but the classic text book definition of species includes the caveat of population demographics, which is generally ignored by most taxonomists. Taxonomists convieniently forget this (it really is a pain to go to the jungle and get the true story) hence you get taxonomy based on metrics of a single individual. But that is really a misrepresentation of what a species is truly meant to be.

I agree that the naming of species is under the jurisdiction of taxonomists, but I disagree that the outcome of naming necessarily meets the definition of a species.

As long as we have drifted this far afield, I think it is worth pointing out that 'species' is a concept we try to impose on the biological world, and can be defined and delimited however we find useful by mutual agreement, but isn't a natural unit. It can always be lumped or split differently, and as long as it agrees with the real phylogeny (as best we understand it at the moment) it can't be right or wrong per se, only more or less useful, more or less compelling, more or lass agreed upon. In practice, species is defined very differently for different groups of organisms.

Evolution happens at the level of the breeding population, which can easily cross the 'species' barrier, but may have nothing to do with the plants on the other side of the mountain no matter how we classify them.

 

[PaphMadMan]

Hope I haven't beaten this one to death. Or gotten too far out over my ski's, it has been 32 years since I sat in Dr. James F. Crow's genetics class, and I may have "mis-remembered".

Leo

About 29 years since Dr. Crow's class for me.

 

[Rick]

As long as we have drifted this far afield, I think it is worth pointing out that 'species' is a concept we try to impose on the biological world, and can be defined and delimited however we find useful by mutual agreement, but isn't a natural unit. It can always be lumped or split differently, and as long as it agrees with the real phylogeny (as best we understand it at the moment) it can't be right or wrong per se, only more or less useful, more or less compelling, more or lass agreed upon. In practice, species is defined very differently for different groups of organisms.

Evolution happens at the level of the breeding population, which can easily cross the 'species' barrier, but may have nothing to do with the plants on the other side of the mountain no matter how we classify them.

I think that was Darwin's point exactly!

 

[Leo Schordje]

About 29 years since Dr. Crow's class for me.

Ah, a Fellow Alumni, Crow was quite the teacher. He really made an impression on me, though I only had him for one 500 level class. He brought in 2 different Nobel Prize winners as guest lecturer's, which blew my socks off. He was somewhat famous in his own right for the work he did on genetic damage suffered by the Hiroshima survivors and their decendants.

Mad-Town was a bizzare and wonderful place to be in those years. I worked incredibly hard, and played incredibly hard in those days. Glad it is all behind me.

Leo