Convention when showing orchid "parents"

[fredfarmer]

Many vendors will show both the "parents" of new hybrids when they are listed for sale. Makes good sense as the progeny will differ from the parents just as children differ from their parents and from each other. My question is, is there a convention as to which parent goes where - when side-by-side - is the male/pollen donor always on the left or right? Analagously, when one-is-on-top of the other - is the male/pollen doner on the top or the bottom. Or is it all random?

[estación seca]

Female/pod parent is always listed first.

Note that for a hybrid, the same name is given without regard to which was the pollen and which was the pod parent. They are generally shown in hybrid lists alphabetically. In other words, Cattleya (C., formerly L.) pacavia = C. (formerly L.) purpurata x C. (formerly L.) tenbrosa. But if the cross is made tenebrosa x purpurata, it's still C. (L.) pacavia.

[Ray]

Yep, "ladies come first".

[fredfarmer]

That's what I thought, but I really didn't know. I recently commented in an email to a vendor that the hybrid flower look just "like his Daddy" without being sure which was on the right side. Sometimes my east coast "Dad" humor just slips out without me thinking it all the way through. Looks like I lucked out.

[fredfarmer]

So "Thank you" to both of you. As usual, members of this board are always ready to help.

[tmoney]

Originally Posted by estación seca

Female/pod parent is always listed first.

Note that for a hybrid, the same name is given without regard to which was the pollen and which was the pod parent. They are generally shown in hybrid lists alphabetically. In other words, Cattleya (C., formerly L.) pacavia = C. (formerly L.) purpurata x C. (formerly L.) tenbrosa. But if the cross is made tenebrosa x purpurata, it's still C. (L.) pacavia.

curious...so an anomoly is the germaine vincent v. jennifer palermo? we did a vid on our channel about this, and i am stil a bit confused. in the germaine vin the parent is a "speciosa", but in palermo it is a tetraspis. they are "reciprocal" crosses, so in theory should have the same name....

is it because of the speciosa / tretraspis deal? or is it because it was originally given a different name so that has just stuck? thanks for any input!

[Roberta]

Phal speciosa and Phal tetraspis are synonyms (at least according to Kew) and Phal tetraspis is the accepted name. Name changes do tend to mess up hybrid references.