Species Orchids?

[jkofferdahl]

This is a fun thread. I hope that my earlier responses in it haven't annoyed too many. I freely concede that there are many here who have a much firmer grasp of this subject than do I.

The process of crossing plants is commonly referred to as "hybridization". When the process is to produce a desired effect, the offspring is commonly referred to as a "hybrid". That's how I used these terms. And while I do bow to the correct use of the terms, which refer to the crossing of the dissimilar, I also have to wonder how far it goes. OK, in the real sense of things I misused the terms.

Taxonomy changes, as discussed. But over time, the crossing of plants within a species in a laboratory, rather than in nature, to direct the results toward something more desired goes from being a natural process to one that is very unnatural. Are the offspring considered a part of a new species? Or, being so dissimilar to the original species as found in the field, entering into the realm of hybrid? It seems that in talking about orchids the answer, at least now, is no. Thus each plant referred to, for example, as Neofinitia falcata is of the same species even though they look exceedingly dissimilar. Flower shape and color, flower size, leaf shape all change. When, I ask, does something go from being a cultivar within a species to being a hybrid? When did Phal violacea var Borneo change names to Phal bellini? Is that an apples to oranges comparison?

I have four dogs. One is a pure mutt, made of just about every "breed" possible. He's big, at 75 pounds, black, and as sweet animal as any ever born, as well as highly intelligent. St. Cody. One is a cross between a laborador and a basset hound. Two are pugs, one of whom is as sweet as a dog can be and one who is, well, a bit bitchy. I had a greyhound who was very typical of her breed, an excellent racer in her time, and about as intelligent as a box of rocks. Yet the pugs are the same "breed" and all five trace their lineage back about 10,000 years to the same original species, the wolf, Canis lupus (at least, that's what science seems to believe). What has happened to them over the millenia to so change them that descendants of the same original species, intentionally crossed over the many generations, became so dramatically different? Is a miniature pug the same species as a Mastif, when the miniature pug weighs less than 10% of the Mastif's weight? And why aren't they all still referred to as Canis lupus? And why is it that new breeds are introduced which came from the same stock lines as other breeds and yet are unlike their ancestors? When did Canis lupis become Canis domesticus? Each dog has been bred to gain certain characteristics: the laborador for it's great work in the field, the Mastif for it's size, strength, and loyalty, the Pug to be nothing more than a companion dog.

To me it is all no more straightforward than the purposeful interbreeding of orchids in a species. At what point, after how many generations, does a plant grow so different from the origin of the species that it is no longer a part of that distant species? Does the taxonomist even know? Doritis pulcherimma is now Phal. pulcherimma because taxonomists can't even decide on genera!

If a biologist tells me that my pug and my mutt are the same species, cool. I know he won't tell me that the pug and a grey wolf are the same. So, again, when does a species plant, continually crossed, recrossed, and directedly crossed within a species become something other than the original species? At some point it has to happen.

Yes, we still refer to them as species. The genetics are extremely similar. I know what, technically, a species refers to, what a hybrid refers to, what a cultivar refers to. Yet as I see it there is a huge amount of grey area within the discussion which my limited education simply fails to follow.

Now I'm confused by my orchids AND my pets. I need some Advil.

[Royal]

Originally Posted by jkofferdahl

This is a fun thread. I hope that my earlier responses in it haven't annoyed too many. I freely concede that there are many here who have a much firmer grasp of this subject than do I.

Me too! I agree, this is fun.

The plant kingdom is just different from the animal kingdom. Most of the time, in animals, intergeneric or even interspecific breeding yields sterile offspring (if even viable). They have to play by different rules.

I see the dog thing like forced lateral evolution. If we selectively breed for certain traits we are forcing evolution. If the decision of which trait succeeds is ours, it's not necessarily an advantageous adaptation - so it's just a lateral move. Over a period of time it becomes so different that it must be given individual consideration. (like distinguishing between C. lupus and C. dosmesticus) How much time? There's the rub.

[JennS]

Ok...let me see what (if anything) i have learned. The correct way to have written the name of the Phal. would have been:
Phal. voileaceae var. Borneo
Is that correct?
My plant was labeled like this:
Phal. voilaceae 'Borneo'
So, was my plant labeled incorrectly or does this mean something different?

So, if it was supposed to be written:
Phal. voilaceae var. Borneo
then it would correctly now be called
Phal. bellina?

And because the b in bellina is lowercase, I know it too is a species?

After that I am still lost as far as how the variation and subvariation thing goes, but maybe because I have yet to see one of those on my tags.

So, for another question on Den. anosum (sorry if I spelled it incorrectly) var. superbum, that is still as species? How did the var. superbum come to be? It it just a slightly different form for the regular Den. anosum or should it be renamed to as the Phal. bellina was? Am I even close?

[drew_pruett]

To go back to the original question, "what is a species". A species is a plant written up in (these days at least) a peer-reviewed journal with a botanical (latin) description of the characteristics of the leaf, root, pseudobulb, and flower, along with a picture. The botanist decides if a new plant is a natural hybrid of already described species, or whether it is "new". Natural hybrids seem to be relatively rare (I know of a few cattleyas, like cattleya belairensis x -- they're always marked with an x to denote natural hybrid) as in the wild, evolution has pushed plants within a given locale to flower at different times to maximize the effect of the bloom. At least, that is how it seems with the genii that I have studied. Large or old genii get rewritten periodically (think bulbophyllum and the updated taxonomical structure of garay et al in 1994), either through a peer-reviewed article, or through a scientific text. You can find an interesting account of the early days of cattleya taxonomy in "The Classic Cattleyas" by Chadwick and son
What constitutes a species