True species

[insigne]

No

If not, what should we classify them?? A new species or a new artificial species or hybrid swarm...??

 

[Braem]

If not, what should we classify them?? A new species or a new artificial species or hybrid swarm...??

As a hybrid ... and hybrids vary considerably .... if you are going to make different taxonomic entities for each and every hybrid that is made, you are ending up with several hundred thousand entitities in orchids alone. That is no longer taxonomy, that is nonsense. Of cours you can argue that females are a different species than men, and then you can argue that the redhed with B cup is a different species than a redhead with C cup ... You can do that, but that is of course nonsense. A species is a naturally occurring population of interbreeding organisms (but note the "naturally occurring"), and that exclude the hybrids (and in plants there are some extra problems).

 

[valenzino]

Hey Valenzino, dude, I looked at your photo stream and leapin' lizards you have some incredible plants! I don't know what I love better, your sanderianum collection, hangianum collection or that monster Phal. giganteum the most. Seriously wonderful stuff :clap:

Thanks Tom,as soon I will revive my HD memory from my old laptop,will add others...Unfortunately jannuary 2010 I lost 1000+ plants in a very bad combination of misfortunes..(colder night ever...rat eating electric cables...generator broken...me in china,my brother in India,my mother in hospital with my father and much more...) my bigger greenhous gone -10C°...
Luckily all my most important plants were in the other greenhouse(that gone to 0C° so plants got extremely damaged but not died...inside there,the big gigantea,sanderianum and some roths...),and in the indoor growing area so all safe.I lost mostly the progenyI produced and some important plants but few.I still crying sometime thinking at it...
After 1 year + plants starting recover and doing flasking from beginning...

...and then you can argue that the redhed with B cup is a different species than a redhead with C cup ... You can do that, but that is of course nonsense.

will ask my friend what kind of beautifull species is his sister redhead with D Cup!!!:rollhappy:oke:

[/QUOTE]...A species is a naturally occurring population of interbreeding organisms (but note the "naturally occurring"), and that exclude the hybrids (and in plants there are some extra problems).[/QUOTE]

Very simply and nicely explained!Thanks

 

[insigne]

As a hybrid ... and hybrids vary considerably .... if you are going to make different taxonomic entities for each and every hybrid that is made, you are ending up with several hundred thousand entitities in orchids alone. That is no longer taxonomy, that is nonsense. Of cours you can argue that females are a different species than men, and then you can argue that the redhed with B cup is a different species than a redhead with C cup ... You can do that, but that is of course nonsense. A species is a naturally occurring population of interbreeding organisms (but note the "naturally occurring"), and that exclude the hybrids (and in plants there are some extra problems).

Sorry, I do not quite understand your explanation. Let me show an example. I bring 2 plants of Paph concolor from the wild. I plan to breed them to get a real salmon colour. In the second generation (from crossing the 2 original plants), I select 2 offspring that show the most obvious salmon colouration at the back of the flower. I cross those 2 offspring to make the 3rd generation. When the 3rd generation bloom, I select the most salmon coloured clones and cross them to make another generation. Assume that I got solid slamon colour offspring in the fourth generation and the progeny are quite uniform. Are these still valid to call Paph concolor??

 

[SlipperKing]

Sorry, I do not quite understand your explanation. Let me show an example. I bring 2 plants of Paph concolor from the wild. I plan to breed them to get a real salmon colour. In the second generation (from crossing the 2 original plants), I select 2 offspring that show the most obvious salmon colouration at the back of the flower. I cross those 2 offspring to make the 3rd generation. When the 3rd generation bloom, I select the most salmon coloured clones and cross them to make another generation. Assume that I got solid slamon colour offspring in the fourth generation and the progeny are quite uniform. Are these still valid to call Paph concolor??

Yes, still the species, concolor. Only now it's conolor var. salamoniana just like concolor var. album, var. longipetalum or var. hennisianum. Get it?

 

[Kevin]

Yes, still the species, concolor. Only now it's conolor var. salamoniana just like concolor var. album, var. longipetalum or var. hennisianum. Get it?

I don't quite get that. Are humans creating species now, or varieties of species? Isn't this just line-breeding, just like with Phrag besseae? Should the new improved besseaes, that look nothing like what occurs in the wild, now be called besseae var. gigantea, or some other name?

 

[poozcard]

Yes, still the species, concolor. Only now it's conolor var. salamoniana just like concolor var. album, var. longipetalum or var. hennisianum. Get it?

In this case, with variance of color, should be consider as fma. salmonium.

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:

 

[poozcard]

Poozcard,I understand your way to see things.I usually say,when starting lectures,that everithing depends on points of view...we can say that humans have made the orchids hybrids...or...that orchids have used humans to make faster their evolution and adapted also to human created environments(and ability of "adapt" is a way to evaluate intelligence in nature).Is always a matter of the eye that looks things...probably an Alien will explain things in a different way we do.
BUT...as we are humans,to classifie and understand things,and use them to comunicate,we have to create a code that is always "antropocentric".
If not antropocentric,also mathematics became a point of view and not a correct science.

I also always say that in the forest there are not nametags :rollhappy:
So a "Species" is something described somewhere that have to have particular
characteristics to be called species.Is not an universal truth but a way we can comunicate an idea eachother for further studies and to leave the knowledge in comprehensible way to our posterity.Is a code,and not a truth.

:rollhappy:

I totally agree.

I think I get more idea of how should we classify species (that I previously ask in leuco topic)

:rollhappy::rollhappy:

 

[insigne]

I don't quite get that. Are humans creating species now, or varieties of species? Isn't this just line-breeding, just like with Phrag besseae? Should the new improved besseaes, that look nothing like what occurs in the wild, now be called besseae var. gigantea, or some other name?

That's exactly what my question is. The line breeding! And the progeny do not look like the wild population anymore. And I am sure that this process will greatly impact its genome/DNA. By human, these line breeding plants are moving further away from the wild plants. With vigorous selection, the tenth generation might have nothing in common with the wild population at all. Can we call it Paph concolor?

 

[poozcard]

...A species is a naturally occurring population of interbreeding organisms (but note the "naturally occurring"), and that exclude the hybrids (and in plants there are some extra problems).

Very simply and nicely explained!Thanks

May I correct it a little bit.
:rollhappy:

...A species is a non-man-made occurring population of interbreeding organisms (but note the "non-man-made"), and that exclude the hybrids (and in plants there are some extra problems).

:evil:

 

[poozcard]

That's exactly what my question is. The line breeding! And the progeny do not look like the wild population anymore. And I am sure that this process will greatly impact its genome/DNA. By human, these line breeding plants are moving further away from the wild plants. With vigorous selection, the tenth generation might have nothing in common with the wild population at all. Can we call it Paph concolor?

I am not sure we can call it or not.
But in the market, they call it concolor.

:drool::drool::drool:

 

[Rick]

I think one of the big differences between a line bred species and a full out complex hybrid is that you could stick it back out in the wild and its natural pollinators will go to it, and keep the population viable.

In the case of a complex hybrid plant the "natural polinator" has become Homo sapiens.And the "natural system" for these plants is a greenhouse.

By twists of logic you might say that these fully domesticated mega hybirds are a newly created unnatural species (if they bred true), but the "nature" human beings create versus what happens in the absence of humans is totally different.

Just about any organism can "engineer" the natural system to its own liking. Beavers, elepahants, invasive weed species.... But because we humans rate ourselves as special (and have the power to obliterate every thing on the planet), we have come up with our own names and systems to justify are place in the world.

 

[Rick]

Actually getting back to your original question.

I have been to talks by Hadley Cash, and talked to him later about breeding slippers.

My understanding is that breeding of complex's has fairly low production rates compared to breeding species. The germination rates can be poor, the rate of distorted or crippled flowers is high, and the variation in offspring is relatively high.

He would should two awarded parents and the outcome of breeding, but in general he was only showing us the best one or two of maybe a dozen surviving seedlings (of which half of them could have been tossed as cripples).

A lot of this was seen for Cattleyas too.

Periodically you get some genes inserted on a certain outcross that adds some significant genetic viability to increase production rates. Those finds have been critical in breeding programs even if they don't get "the look" you are shooting for.

But if it wasn't for human intervention complex hybrid paphs couldn't survive in a wilderness devoid of humans.

 

[Rick]

That's exactly what my question is. The line breeding! And the progeny do not look like the wild population anymore. And I am sure that this process will greatly impact its genome/DNA. By human, these line breeding plants are moving further away from the wild plants. With vigorous selection, the tenth generation might have nothing in common with the wild population at all. Can we call it Paph concolor?

I'd be surprised if after 10 generations of line breeding of a species, the the flower will not look "anything" like the original species.

I have yet to see a line bred charlesworthii become indistinguishable from a wild plant, but complex hybrids don't look anything like wild species , even after just the 4th or 5th crossing.

That still doesn't answer the question (or the utility of the question) of whether a line bred plant can be placed back in the jungle and have it carry on the race. Plants in the jungle are constrained by the capabilities of insect pollinators. In some cases I can see that a relatively small shift in flower size could allow for different species of pollinator to be able to do the deed.

 

[SlipperKing]

These line bred species are what I like to call "hybrid species" These are man's vision of what the "prefect look" is for any given species not God's or nature's. Rick suggest, "you could stick it back out in the wild and its natural pollinators will go to it," For me, I think if the natural pollinator saw these monsters they'd be scared to death and fly or run the other way!

 

[Rick]

These line bred species are what I like to call "hybrid species" These are man's vision of what the "prefect look" is for any given species not God's or nature's. Rick suggest, "you could stick it back out in the wild and its natural pollinators will go to it," For me, I think if the natural pollinator saw these monsters they'd be scared to death and fly or run the other way!

That's always a possibility Rick, but the "one-upmanship" strategy is a normal part of evolutionary biology. A standard trick of animal behavior is to exaggerate a trait to get a better response from the target organism.

A classic example is the European cuckoo that lays over-sized eggs (with the same color and spot pattern) as the target parasitized species. The hen sees the super big egg and preferentially sits on them, leaving her own eggs in the cold.

Orchids in general are deceptive pollinators and use this behavior trick of nature to advance their own agenda. Looking like everyone else may help you hide from predators, but sexual selection is based on standing out from the crowd. I have no clue as to the tipping point between successful exaggeration, and "monster". Maybe that would be a good "test" for a linebred species plant, or close hybrid to see if could be successfully in its native range.

 

[gonewild]

The issue with line bred species by human pollinators is how the parents are selected. Humans select mainly for flower beauty. Natural pollinators don't likely search out the best or biggest flower to deposit the pollen. What the do is stop at the next available flower. That might be on the same plant, a sibling of the plant or an unrelated plant.

Natural species evolution may be focused on leaf size or root length or some other "invisible" genetic trait that has given an individual plant within a species the ability to adapt and survive in an evolving environment.

Attracting a pollinator with a beautiful flower is not where biological evolution is headed. But that is where cultivated species evolution heads.
Once humans select the parents and pamper the offspring the cultivated "species" ins no longer the same genetically as the wild species. Human intervention removes the traits that Nature evolved into a species that made it what it is.

So I have to agree, line bred cultivated species are not really "the species" any longer and more resemble hybrids.

But then the whole concept of "species" is a human invention for human benefit.

 

[Rick]

Humans select mainly for flower beauty. Natural pollinators don't likely search out the best or biggest flower to deposit the pollen.

Natural species evolution may be focused on leaf size or root length or some other "invisible" genetic trait that has given an individual plant within a species the ability to adapt and survive in an evolving environment.

Attracting a pollinator with a beautiful flower is not where biological evolution is headed. But that is where cultivated species evolution heads.
Once humans select the parents and pamper the offspring the cultivated "species" ins no longer the same genetically as the wild species. Human intervention removes the traits that Nature evolved into a species that made it what it is.

I don't totally agree Lance. The vegetative parts of an orchid (or any other plant really) have little to do with its ability to reproduce sexually (although it will make a big difference of it's success for vegetative propagation). We have seen how much variation in what we call plant habit is out there in the wild for plants to survive. And I would agree that a lot of that variation in plant habit (basic plant physiology) is lost in line breeding of plants under GH conditions.


Sexual reproduction in orchids is not a random process by completely incoherent insects (unlike wind blown pollen for pine trees). Which is why we see all the fantastic diversity in orchid flowers. Unlike survival of an individual that depends on the quality of its vegetative success, the ability of that individual to pass its genes into another generation is dependent on its ability to attract a mate. Granted the insect is the go-between for two plants to sexually reproduce, but they are still attracted to these flowers for specific reasons, and the stronger the attractant stimuli the greater the chance of successful pollination. If there was no selection by pollinators how could we every get bucket orchids from pansies?

There is definitely a component of selection by the insects that pollinate orchids, but you are correct that there may be aspects of the flower that attract the bug that may be totally offensive to a human being. But I'm equally sure that insect pollinators could care less about the leaf quality of a flowering plant in the jungle when making its selection of flowers to pollinate.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say!

I'm not sure where the premise of this whole argument is trying to go.

Advocacy of hybridization? Keeping species pure?

There are some that say once the plant is removed from the wild it is no longer a species. So why not breed indiscriminately and just shut up and love the pretty flowers. Some people like to mix up all the food on their plate and eat a homogenous plate of food.

Some like to keep there "species" pure, and somewhere, draw the line (in a totally gray field) as to how far they will out cross or line breed to maintain a species "concept". Some people like to keep their vegies separate from their meat, and eat from separate selections on their plates.

Rather than arguing what is right or wrong maybe we should have a survey of preference for hybrids or species?

 

[gonewild]

I don't totally agree Lance. The vegetative parts of an orchid (or any other plant really) have little to do with its ability to reproduce sexually (although it will make a big difference of it's success for vegetative propagation). We have seen how much variation in what we call plant habit is out there in the wild for plants to survive. And I would agree that a lot of that variation in plant habit (basic plant physiology) is lost in line breeding of plants under GH conditions.

The vegetative genetic qualities of an orchid have everything to with it's ability to reproduce sexually. The vegetative qualities of a wild plant are what enable the plant to survive the environment long enough to produce a flower for reproduction. As the environment changes (evolves) a species must change to match it or perish. The vegetative part of the plant species is what needs to adapt and survive the environment 365 days per year.

Certainly in Nature both flower and vegetative genetic traits are equally important for species survival. In Nature both are involved in species reproduction and continued existence. But in an orchid breeding program where the flower is always given priority and weak plants with beautiful flowers are artificially nursed towards reproductive opportunities the true species qualities are lost. When I say 'qualities" I'm not referring to beauty but rater the ability to survive in an environment that the species naturally evolved in.

I'm not sure where the premise of this whole argument is trying to go.

Advocacy of hybridization? Keeping species pure?

Some like to keep there "species" pure, and somewhere, draw the line (in a totally gray field) as to how far they will out cross or line breed to maintain a species "concept".

I'm not arguing any point. I like species and I like hybrids. But if I were going to collect "species" orchids and value my collection as "species" I would want plants that were originally collected from the wild. Then I would have a valuable collection of genuine natural specimens.

Some people like to keep their vegies separate from their meat, and eat from separate selections on their plates.

Yes but after they eat the meat and vegies the result is always sh**!
(couldn't resist)

 

[Rick]

I'm not arguing any point. I like species and I like hybrids. But if I were going to collect "species" orchids and value my collection as "species" I would want plants that were originally collected from the wild. Then I would have a valuable collection of genuine natural specimens.

Well that pretty much runs down to about 1% of orchids in collections these days. What nature is left out there is not accessible to the taking like it was 100 years ago. So I guess I'd have to admit that I just keep species wannabe's.