True species

[Braem]

Do you think that the eco is changed too?

Ecology of 2011 should be quite far from what it was in 18XX when they firstly found those paph.

If some of those Paphs which were collected those days still alive, you bring them to their eco, they may die almost immediately.

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:

Of course the ecology has changed ... it is constantly changing ... but manmade changes go faster that natural changes. And that, of course may result (over millions of years - not ove two centuries) in the development of new species through adaptation.

 

[Ozpaph]

Do you think that the eco is changed too?

Ecology of 2011 should be quite far from what it was in 18XX when they firstly found those paph.

If some of those Paphs which were collected those days still alive, you bring them to their eco, they may die almost immediately.

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:

I dont agree. Most untouched wilderness areas have quite stable environmental conditions, on average. Global temperatures may have changed slightly over 200 years but that variance compared to the summer - winter changes is relatively minor. Also rainfall patterns are just that - longterm and predictable. Its only when man interferes directly that local ecosystems change and threaten endemic species. That's why reforestation works.

 

[Ozpaph]

One last point ... "judging criteria" have nothing to do with taxonomy.

Of course, but 'judging criteria' influences line breeding and shifts the Bell curve of natural variance in the cultivated species toward certain characteristics.

 

[Rick]

Do you think that the eco is changed too?

Ecology of 2011 should be quite far from what it was in 18XX when they firstly found those paph.

If some of those Paphs which were collected those days still alive, you bring them to their eco, they may die almost immediately.

:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:

Actually the ecology will not be that drastically different from what it was in the 1800s. A dessert is caused by a certain set of environmental conditions that are totally different from those that form rain forests. The locations of desserts and rain forests may have shifted a little in the last 200 years, but the conditions required to create them have changed very little. Species are formed in response to the cumulative forces of nature. Extinctions are caused by sudden major changes in environment (ecology). Unlike humans, slipper orchids do not "create" the environment that suites them (certainly not at time frames we can detect).

People transplant things all the time (including orchids). We recently had a thread on what species from all around the world would survive in Florida. Actually its not that uncommon for people to take cultured plants, stick them outside (often in foreign ecosystems) and the individual plant survives just fine. In some unfortunate cases the plants become obnoxious weeds because there natural control mechanism (predators) are absent. Once again Florida has orchid examples where African Oceoclades are abundant weed orchid species.

You may have read the thread I posted on "one of my favorite natives". I've been transplanting nursery grown native woodland species into my yard that previously was your typical manicured mowed grass yard. We conditioned portions of our yard to return it to a woodland condition (covering up the grass with sheets of cardboard, and bury with about a foot of mulch and leaves). We have many species that are adapting to the conditions and spreading by natural seed dispersal to places in the yard we didn't originally plant them. We planted a vine species that is used by specific butterfly species to feed its larvae, and after 3 years, that butterfly has found our yard and uses these thriving cultivars to feed hundreds of larvae.

I see lots of photos from cities in tropical places where people transplant orchids onto buildings, backyard gardens, and bridges. Some are species and some are hybrids. They look pretty healthy to me.

I have also read success stories of lab propagated Australian terrestrials being reintroduced to places where they had become extirpated (apparently the trick was to include the appropriate mychorrizae fungi in the seed germination mix).

There are many examples of cultivated species transplanted to either novel or original environments that are successful. I fully understand that there are many examples of failure too.

 

[Rick]

Here's an exercise:

The natural flower span of a few of the most line bred species.

rothschildianum 14-30 cm
delenatii 7.5 to 8 cm
charlesworthii 8 cm
sukhakulii 11-14.3 cm

from Cribb.

Now if someone has access to AQ plus or some other award record system can you look up the biggest (flower span) awarded example of each species so we can put a number to the magnitude of change caused by culture and line breeding?

 

[Rick]

I was thinking back some more on an earlier statement about the effects primarily due to mankind. But trees can also be significant manipulators of environment over decade time frames.

The loss of a single big tree can create a whole new(temporary) microhabitat.

But that's a whole other branch of successional habitat changes not really pertinent to this discussion.

 

[poozcard]

I was thinking back some more on an earlier statement about the effects primarily due to mankind. But trees can also be significant manipulators of environment over decade time frames.

The loss of a single big tree can create a whole new(temporary) microhabitat.

But that's a whole other branch of successional habitat changes not really pertinent to this discussion.

That is one of the point I could extract from this discussion.

The species can be evolved from natural causes except due to human.
In this case, human is denied to be a part of nature (eventhough we are)
This is the definition that I have to follow for the word species.

 

[poozcard]

Of course line bred species are a species and as long as nothing else is crosed in ... it remains the species ... as soon as something else is crossed in, it is a hybrid. Thus, there is nothing difficult about that.

The same thing is to be said of charlesworthii or any species for that.

And if you take the overall "population" of those line breads .. you will find that the percentage of "larger flowers" (or whatever variation for that) will be exactly the same as in a wild growing population.

One last point ... "judging criteria" have nothing to do with taxonomy.

Roth found you believe that linebreds are not species anymore.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=290880&postcount=47

Could you please kindly explain this contradiction?
Thank you.

 

[Ross]

Here's an exercise:

The natural flower span of a few of the most line bred species.

rothschildianum 14-30 cm
delenatii 7.5 to 8 cm
charlesworthii 8 cm
sukhakulii 11-14.3 cm

from Cribb.

Now if someone has access to AQ plus or some other award record system can you look up the biggest (flower span) awarded example of each species so we can put a number to the magnitude of change caused by culture and line breeding?

From OrchidWiz:

rothschildianum: 'Rex' 38.0cm median: 26.o cm
delenatii: 'Hat Trick' 11.0 cm median:8.8 cm
charlesworthii: 'Rona's Pride' 9.0 cm median: 7.4 cm largest dorsal: 'Laura' 8.1 cm
sukhakulii: 'Cow Hollow' 16.5 cm. median:14.0 cm

 

[Rick]

From OrchidWiz:

rothschildianum: 'Rex' 38.0cm median: 26.o cm
delenatii: 'Hat Trick' 11.0 cm median:8.8 cm
charlesworthii: 'Rona's Pride' 9.0 cm median: 7.4 cm largest dorsal: 'Laura' 8.1 cm
sukhakulii: 'Cow Hollow' 16.5 cm. median:14.0 cm[/QUOTE

Thanks Ross


At least based on overall flower size I'm not seeing line breeding producing monsters.

The largest awarded roth is 27% bigger
The largest delenatii = 38% bigger
The largest charlesworthii = 12.5% bigger
The largest sukhakulii = 15.4% bigger than max of range noted for observation of wild population data.

The difference for charlesworthii and sukhakulii would probably not be statistically different from the natural range.

The median size of awarded plants for each species is either within the natural range or just about equal to the upper end of the natural range.

I really don't see anything that would make a pollinator go running in fear from these flowers.

Now we have not addressed the question of whether or not line breeding genetics had anything to do with the above modest size increases or cultural/developmental factors.

Also this focused on only overall flower size, and I know in the case of charlesworthii (and spicerianum) there has been a focus on upright flat dorsals too.

 

[Rick]

That is one of the point I could extract from this discussion.

The species can be evolved from natural causes except due to human.
In this case, human is denied to be a part of nature (eventhough we are)
This is the definition that I have to follow for the word species.

Generally humans haven't been around long enough to influence a lot of organisms genetic status except in the case of very high turnover organisms like bacteria and insects. These cases are brought up as cases of evolution occurring during a human generation.

Disease bacteria resistant to antibiotics, insects impervious to pesticides. Still in many cases of the above we just see adaptive mutation at small numbers of gene loci, but not enough change in many cases to call them new species. The bacteria case is pretty close when people study the bacteria flora below cattle feed lots (that use lots of antibiotics). Successful bacteria species are swapping plasmids with other species (almost like hybridizing) and generating very new genetic concepts altogether.

For most other "higher" life forms, humans are a driver of extinction rather than evolution. Humans generally alter environmental conditions so radically and so fast that there is little in the genetic "deck of cards' for most organisms to adapt with and subsequently breed new populations of adaptive organisms to the new environment. However, I did hear of a population of rattleless rattlesnakes popping up in Southern California. Rattles where warnings to keep big grazing herbivores (like buffalo) to keep the snakes from getting stepped on. But now when a snake rattles it normally gets its head chopped off with a shovel. So because of humans, it is no longer adaptive for these rattlesnakes to warn large organisms to stay away.

Even though humans are of nature by default of being on planet earth, the majority of human race does not consider itself part of nature, and chooses to exploit and destroy natural resources to produce an environment of human choice not dependent on "natural" conditions. This generally means forests converted to grassland, grassland converted to orchard, grassland converted to desert, all of the above converted to city, industrial parks, strip mines....

There are a handful of very adaptive species like cockroaches, rats, sparrows, starlings, and domesticated animals and plants that we keep around to feed ourselves with, but most other species just go away.

 

[gonewild]

I partially disagree.

I think the root/leaves size will not be focused by the pollinator (excluding human)

In my opinion, the evolution will focus mainly on the sexual function.
Those plants having the best attractive sexual organism will also have highest opportunity to get pollination successful.


:rollhappy:

No, the roots and leaves are not focused by the pollinator. But if the vegetative part of the plant does not "evolve' with the changing environment there will be no flower produced to attract pollinators. If the vegetative part of the plant has genetic properties that allow it to survive and flourish in it's ever changing environment it will produce a flower for reproduction. If the genetics of the plant do not adapt to changes in the environment there will be no flower for sexual reproduction so therefor the vegetative part of the plant is the focus of evolution.

 

[Rick]

No, the roots and leaves are not focused by the pollinator. But if the vegetative part of the plant does not "evolve' with the changing environment there will be no flower produced to attract pollinators. If the vegetative part of the plant has genetic properties that allow it to survive and flourish in it's ever changing environment it will produce a flower for reproduction. If the genetics of the plant do not adapt to changes in the environment there will be no flower for sexual reproduction so therefor the vegetative part of the plant is the focus of evolution.

Although I agree with your general concept Lance, in my experience the adaptability of individual plants to survive to blooming is much greater than I think we give them credit for. On the one hand we get a plant in from the wild, and adapt it (or at least a small percentage of the group) to a set of GH conditions. How many of these conditions are the same to start with?

Then you have people growing in moss, CHC, diatomite, bark, rubber tires, semi hydro, .......to the point where it becomes apparent that none of these make a difference anyway. Then you have MSU, Jack's, Jungle green, blood meal, bonemeal, limestone and oyster shell, no supplementation at all.......and they still grow ok. Then they water with DI, RO, Nashville tap, Chicago tap, Los Angeles tap..... and they still survive. Pots, baskets, plastic clay wood.

The amount of uncontrolled variables from around the country is enormous, and just about everyone can get some of it to work! The more I keep learning and experiencing, orchids are plants and probably 80% of there requirements are the same. That's a lot of latitude.

Then we see insitu pics of phrags flowering in the sun with small pale leaves, and phrags flowering under a rock overhang with long dark leaves. Paphs growing on dripping moss covered limestone cliffs (without rotting roots or Erwinia infections). Lowii growing in trees, lowii growing on limestone cliffs. Rothschildianum growing in a garden in the Kinabalu state park.

There are undoubtedly going to be species we just can't figure out. Most likely things restricted to a very small range. But I'll bet we would be OK for the bulk of things we try.

 

[gonewild]

Although I agree with your general concept Lance, in my experience the adaptability of individual plants to survive to blooming is much greater than I think we give them credit for. On the one hand we get a plant in from the wild, and adapt it (or at least a small percentage of the group) to a set of GH conditions. How many of these conditions are the same to start with?

Then you have people growing in moss, CHC, diatomite, bark, rubber tires, semi hydro, .......to the point where it becomes apparent that none of these make a difference anyway. Then you have MSU, Jack's, Jungle green, blood meal, bonemeal, limestone and oyster shell, no supplementation at all.......and they still grow ok. Then they water with DI, RO, Nashville tap, Chicago tap, Los Angeles tap..... and they still survive. Pots, baskets, plastic clay wood.

The amount of uncontrolled variables from around the country is enormous, and just about everyone can get some of it to work! The more I keep learning and experiencing, orchids are plants and probably 80% of there requirements are the same. That's a lot of latitude.

Then we see insitu pics of phrags flowering in the sun with small pale leaves, and phrags flowering under a rock overhang with long dark leaves. Paphs growing on dripping moss covered limestone cliffs (without rotting roots or Erwinia infections). Lowii growing in trees, lowii growing on limestone cliffs. Rothschildianum growing in a garden in the Kinabalu state park.

There are undoubtedly going to be species we just can't figure out. Most likely things restricted to a very small range. But I'll bet we would be OK for the bulk of things we try.

I'm not talking about short term adaptability where a plant can surrvive less than it's optimal conditions. i'm talking about evolution over a lot of generations that effects the species population as a whole.

Granted you can take plants that normally exist in full sun and grow them in shaded conditions. They continue to grow and flower and can reproduce sexually. BUT the flower form does not determine which plant will survive to out produce the others. The plant that survives longer will impart more of it's genetic traits into the population over the time of evolution. One plant that came from the sunny environment may have had the sexiest flower but that flower does nothing to keep the individual reproductive plant living on to reproduce future generations. The plant that adapts vegetativly to the new conditions, the best, will be the evolution model of the future.

I'm thinking the flower is more of a "tie breaker" in the game of evolution. When two plants have equal vegetative genetic abilities the one with the sexiest flower will attract the first pollinator. But then on the other hand why would that pollinator not also stop at the less attractive flower?

 

[Rick]

I'm thinking the flower is more of a "tie breaker" in the game of evolution. When two plants have equal vegetative genetic abilities the one with the sexiest flower will attract the first pollinator. But then on the other hand why would that pollinator not also stop at the less attractive flower?

Well for plants that don't want to be selfed, it helps to not be toooo much better looking than your neighbor (which is likely to be related to you anyway). Compared to dandelions I think orchid seed dispersal is relatively poor.

Since most orchids are deceptive pollinators, and pollination odds depend on a lot of moving parts working in almost perfection, you got to be at the top of your game. Most pollinators are getting nothing in return for their efforts, so once they figure out they are getting screwed for nothing why bother going to another flower. So which scams work the best? You've got to be the best, and constantly improve to keep the scam working. Otherwise there's plenty of other places to go that would probably be more productive anyway.

That probably brings up a more important point on in or out of wild plants.

We've been putting everything into the context of surviving different physical/chemical hardships, but what may be the biggest factor in jungle life is competition and other inter organism relationships.

Jungle whether is warm humid and stable, thats why everyone wants to live there. But then it's nutrient impoverished, everybody starving. So you develop a myriad of social relationships to share the resources. All those relationships are broken when you move to NYCity!! You get your own place, a private trainer, and live on a diet of donuts and fillet mignon.

 

[gonewild]

Since most orchids are deceptive pollinators, and pollination odds depend on a lot of moving parts working in almost perfection, you got to be at the top of your game. Most pollinators are getting nothing in return for their efforts, so once they figure out they are getting screwed for nothing why bother going to another flower. So which scams work the best? You've got to be the best, and constantly improve to keep the scam working. Otherwise there's plenty of other places to go that would probably be more productive anyway.

That sounds kind of like the nightly news.

That probably brings up a more important point on in or out of wild plants.

We've been putting everything into the context of surviving different physical/chemical hardships, but what may be the biggest factor in jungle life is competition and other inter organism relationships.

This is exactly what I'm trying to point out, competition and other inter organism relationships causes plants to constantly evolve to compete. And I think the vegetative part of the plants evolution contributes more to this survival than the flower.

Jungle whether is warm humid and stable, thats why everyone wants to live there. But then it's nutrient impoverished, everybody starving. So you develop a myriad of social relationships to share the resources. All those relationships are broken when you move to NYCity!! You get your own place, a private trainer, and live on a diet of donuts and fillet mignon.

And long term survival in NYCity requires you to be a big colorful sexy flower that can never return to the jungle. :rollhappy:

So for orchids to survive in the Jungle they need to evolve genetically strong and to survive in cultivation the need to be genetically beautiful.

 

[Rick]

So how do plants compete (and communicate) their vegetative superiority into the next generation with so-so run of the mill flowers?

I guess if every one in the village is poor, run down, and on their last leg, then maybe anyone advertising at all has got to be a hottie? I don't think its that much different than human culture (except where they have arranged marriages). The girls in the village all compete against each other to out beauty there friends, customizing there cloths, accentuating whatever physical assets they have to attract a boy. Once attracted and hooked, time is spent to look into more practical aspects of careers, cooking and budgeting.

But you can see from the math that for all the blowing a going on "line-bred monsters", the majority of award winners aren't really that much out of the ordinary. It's been a while since I heard about anyone trying to put slipper orchids back in the wild. Some Thai botanical gardens seem to do OK on their protected grounds. Does Ecuagenera try any transplants? I think most of the losses in Borneo projects were from poaching and not death.

Actually my recent notions of orchid nutrition are leaning more and more in this direction for more successful culture. Most of us started off with "weakly weekly" with commercial balanced fertilizers. I'm seriously starting to investigate into more reductions of certain components (no more donuts, and tofu instead of fillet mignon).

When I worked in herps at the zoo, I developed a "productivity" index (numbers of animals produced + numbers of animals sold / numbers of animals died + numbers of animals purchased). In simple terms we were a net consumer or producer of animals ( in this case herps). When I started as supervisor that value was less than 1 (net consumer), by the time I left it was 2 or 3 (definite producer). Originally, we chronically purchased animals we had neither the resources or knowledge to maintain let alone reproduce. We developed an attitude that as a zoo it was not morally correct for us to collect organisms with no potential to propagate (that's what museums do). Secondly it was not morally right for us to purchase pie in the sky husbandry long shots without proper infrastructure or knowledge. Thirdly every organism counted equally and had to pull its weight either in the market place or as an education piece (or both). We propagated both exotics and natives. I sold poison dart frogs into the pet trade, cobras and pythons to other zoos, and released rattlesnakes and copperheads back into the wild (gotta restock for those rattlesnake roundups you knowoke:oke I was like the Johny Appleseed of herps for a few years. Our attendance went up, our exhibitry was rated as some of the best in the country, we paid for our own air conditioning, mortality dropped even more. Some of our keepers, with barely high school degrees, were presenting papers for breeding New Guinea pythons and sub Saharan spiny tail agamas. In a two year period we went from consuming hundreds to producing hundreds of various African/Madagascan chameleon species.

Ah the glory days. Now we're just a bunch of pessimistic old slobs waiting for the world to die.

I don't know if this whole conversation even has anything to do with the original question anymore.

 

[Heather]

Rick, whether or not it does, you've done some cool-ass stuff in your life. Love these threads lately - super duper interesting!

 

[Braem]

Of course, but 'judging criteria' influences line breeding and shifts the Bell curve of natural variance in the cultivated species toward certain characteristics.

Agree ... but those criteria are purely subjective and have nothing to do with the variety in nature - and that variety is necessary to keep a species healthy

 

[Braem]

Roth found you believe that linebreds are not species anymore.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=290880&postcount=47

Could you please kindly explain this contradiction?
Thank you.

There is a misunderstanding here ... As far as I can remember, I never claimed that line-bred species are no longer species ... (and if I have, that was a mistake).