Phal bellina x Phal violacea indigo blue

[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.

[MateoinLosAngeles]

Originally Posted by Roberta

"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.

This makes sense to me, Roberta.