Phal bellina x Phal violacea indigo blue

[KC Kam]

Nice. Thanks for the information

[Roberta]

I don't know what sort of distinctions you are proposing. It's really pretty straightforward - a cultivar represents a specific individual. Unlike humans or animals, it is possible for a genetic duplicate of a plant (orchid or otherwise) to exist - by division or cloning. But the cultivar name represents the unique genetics of the original. Any other form of reproduction produces individuals that are not identical.

[Roberta]

If you purchase a specific cultivar, it should look like the picture... it is a clone. With any seed cross, there will be variation, even very substantial variation, because that is the nature of genetics. You and your brother may have the same parents, but you don't look alike unless you are identical twins (and therefore genetically identical or nearly so) And in addition, the parents of a seed cross of the same hybrids, or species, may be different plants and so look different. More like cousins than siblings, likely not like twins. Again, if you want a high level of predictability, buy a mericlone of a named cultivar. That is why the cultivar epithet is important, it says "this specific plant". There still can be some variation, mutations happen. It is a living organism, not a manufactured item. But a clone will be very close to the original.

[Louis_W]

What it boils down to is knowing what to expect.

Here is what yoy can expect if you buy this:

Phalaenopsis Samera 'Bredren's Blue Heaven' - this is a exact copy of what you can see if you look up the award. If the seller shows a picture, the plant you are buying is the exact same plant. If it is not VERY similar (culture can affect things) then you received the wrong plant.

Phal. Samara coerulea- this plant is a "blue" variety but it is no specific individual plant. The plant you bought should be bluish but the photo may not be the specific plant you are buying. If it is not bluish, you receoved the wrong plant.

Phalaenopsis violacea 'Bredren's Midnight Blue' x Phalaenopsis bellina 'Blue Ribbon- two award-winning coerulea parents when bred together give you a potentially great Phal Samara but thats all you know. It likely wont even be coerulea. Its a crapshoot but its good pedigree.

[Roberta]

A further note on the third option... if the coerulea coloration is recessive (probably is) then the odds are good that the cross won't be coerulea. However, the resultant plants with good pedigree and desirable characteristics are likely to be used for further hybridizing, when the coerulea characteristic may surface. That is the hybridizer's art - to see beyond the current plants to the possibilities in future crosses, additional generations down the road.

[MateoinLosAngeles]

I haven't found a conclusive study or article explaining the differences between making (in this case) one species the seed parent vs. making it the pollen parent. I'm not even sure that can be traced back in the DNA.

So if there was a classification that made it mandatory to change grex depending on whether the parents are seed or pollen and we ended up having to make a distinction between Phal Samera and Phal Somero, given this is a primary hybrid that happens in nature where it's impossible (as far as I know) to know whether violacea or bellina were the seed parents, would we need a third name for those "found in nature?" So then if human pollinated the plant you call it Phal Samera or Phal Somero, but if insect pollinated in nature you call it Phal Semere? I just don't see the point or how this offers any value whatsoever based on available knowledge...

Unless I'm completely wrong and we're completely able to tell apart a hybrid based on whether a parent was seed or pollen... beyond speculation. Most hybridizers use the distinction "usually" as in "when this plant acts as the seed parent, we usually get more floriferous plants." I don't see how that could warrant a distinction. I don't know. I don't think botanical nomenclature is about making things more complicated than they need to be for no underlying reason or attempting to be so specific as to become so rigid as to not be able to keep up with advances in our knowledge.

[Jmoney]

the cross is the same name no matter which parent is pollen and which is pod. if it is a natural hybrid often plants from the wild are denoted with a x (i.e. Cattleya x Gravesiana) the hybrid betwen mossiae and lueddemanniana.

to my knowledge the pod parent passes through mitochrondria (this is true for plants and animals), and in plants also passes the chloroplasts. people often say green can in some cases be inherited through the pod parent (for example current paph breeding for very light "platinum" Maudiae-types). how much the pod contributes to other characteristics may be somewhat speculative...

[Ray]

Yes, the difference can be detected, as “mom” (mitochondrial) DNA passes on specific traits that are not acquired from the “dad” DNA. If you see a parent/offspring match in that gene, you’ve established the parenthood.

Because of that, I agree that A x B is not the same as B x A and should have its own grex name, but that isn’t the way those things are tracked.

So, a man-made cross of bellina and violacea is “Samera” when made in either direction, and technically, a wild collected version of either cross would be “X Samera”

[MateoinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by Ray

Yes, the difference can be detected, as “mom” (mitochondrial) DNA passes on specific traits that are not acquired from the “dad” DNA. If you see a parent/offspring match in that gene, you’ve established the parenthood.

Because of that, I agree that A x B is not the same as B x A and should have its own grex name, but that isn’t the way those things are tracked.

So, a man-made cross of bellina and violacea is “Samera” when made in either direction, and technically, a wild collected version of either cross would be “X Samera”

That's awesome to know. I haven't studied taxonomy since high school, really, so my knowledge is extremely limited. But I do wonder if attempting to be too specific could potentially be too restrictive and thus make classification more complicated than it needs to be.

Adding grexes might actually be a necessity that could solve a problem, I just don't know. But in my mind, taxonomy attempts to classify up to a point, allowing future research, discoveries, technological advances to fill in the gaps.

I understand some traits can only be passed on from the "mother," but does that mean they're always passed? Or that if they're passed, it certainly is from the mother. Because distinguishing grexes could potentialy imply a level of certainty in this transmission that might still require more research and understanding.

I don't know, that's just my speculation as to why it hasn't happened yet.

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by MateoinLosAngeles

I understand some traits can only be passed on from the "mother," but does that mean they're always passed? Or that if they're passed, it certainly is from the mother. Because distinguishing grexes could potentialy imply a level of certainty in this transmission that might still require more research and understanding.

I don't know, that's just my speculation as to why it hasn't happened yet.

"Always" and "Never" are both concepts that over-simplify and most of the time are wrong at least sometimes. Certainly with genetics, where the mixing is statistical. (If there weren't variation, selfings and primary crosses would be a lot more predictable than they are) So my suspicion would be that the effect of mitochondrial DNA is sufficiently variable - and unpredictable - in its contribution (just like the nuclear DNA from the parents) that it wouldn't be reasonable to try to break it out as a separate defining factor. The dice aren't random, but when you roll them you still can't be sure of precisely what you're going to get. Perhaps think of this as rolling 3 dice instead of two (nuclear DNA of father and of mother, and maternal mitochondrial DNA) Characteristics inherited from any of these also don't necessarily stand alone - some interact to enhance or suppress or change the net result in the organism. So along with some randomness, the "dice" may also be entangled.