An Opinion .

[Arenalbotanicalgarden]

Originally Posted by camille1585

Why do you say that? Interesting statement, so I'm curious to know what's behind it.

Many people who have had orchids for a while do move into species. I have species, and also a lot of hybrids. The advantage of hybrids is that heterosis leads to more vigorous and hardy plants than the species parents. For instance hybrid Phals are often more forgiving of and bloom easily in a wide range of conditions that the species may not like so much.

Natural habit is destroyed daily. Keeping species sort of solves the problem.

[Rowangreen]

I'm not really sure how much it applies with plants and orchids generally, but hybridising doesn't HAVE to be better than crossing two parents of one species. With many animals the advantage of crossing with animals that are not closely related is more to do with likelyhood of bad genes than any automatic improvement by crossbreeding.

Many genetic problems are caused by recesive genes: that means that if you have just one bad copy, the good gene you also have will compensate. You need bad copies inherited from both mum and dad for the bad gene to come into action. It's estimated that most of us humans carry about 10 each of these bad recesive genes. For instance one in 25 of us carries the gene for Cystic Fibrosis. That's not a problem unless we have kids with someone that also carries the gene. Generally the chances are pretty low that your chosen partner will have the same recesive. However if you were to marry a sibling (sorry for the image...), then any recesive you have, they'll have a 50/50 chance of also carrying, and if they do, your kids will have a one in 4 chance of getting 2 copies and being sick. That's why breeding with your sister or brother is a bad idea!

Again, outcrossing is not automatically good... People think breeding two different breeds of dogs will give hybrid vigour and avoid inherited health problems. But, for example, a cross between a Samoyed and a German Shepherd can still have bad hips, because both parents can have bad hips. (I know such a cross who does...)

Occasionally, a cross breed can creat a real difference, because of the interactions of genes carried by the parents, NOT because of avoidence of bad recesives. For example, if you crossbreed a lion male and a tiger female (I think it's that way round) the result will be an animal much larger than either parent. It doesn't work if the sexes are swapped though. (And it's also worth pointing out that big is not automatically better. It's no accident that big breeds of dog have more hip problems than little ones).

Like I say, I'm not sure how this relates to orchid genetics. But I'd guess that if many species plants are derived from only a few wild specimens, then you'd get bad recessives cropping up from inbreeding. Crossbreeds would then be stronger due to lack of those recesives, though that wouldn't mean that genetically diverse wild species plants would be worse than crossbreeds. I'd also guess that occasionally you would get a 'liger effect'. But that wouldn't happen with all crossbreeds.

[Cym Ladye]

Originally Posted by camille1585

Sorry, I have a plant breeding background so I forget that vocabulary that is basic in breeding is not for other people.

Heterosis = hybrid vigor. Basically the offspring is superior to the sum of the parents, sort of like 1+1=3. This effect is especially strong when you cross 2 highly inbred (pure) parents. F1 hybrids of crop plants are a famous example of this: higher yields, better growth, more vigorous plants. It also happens to a lesser extent in less pure lines, which explains why hybrids are more adaptable.

Thank you for the excellent definition. However, no where does it mention improved blooming. In orchids, Cymbidiums in my case, I have found that one has to be very careful what species are crossed. If one crosses two parents with vastly disparate cultural requirements, plants may be very vigorous growers but never bloom.

The bottom line in all crossing is to know the requirements/characteristics of not only the actual parents involved, whether they are species or hybrids, but as many of the prior generations as possible. In orchids this is not easy, as generally the specific cultivars used are unknown. Having done a little of both I found it a little easier in breeding dogs if one puts the time and energy into extensive research.

Cym Ladye

[Arenalbotanicalgarden]

I'd like to reply to Rowan but my knowledge of the Kingdumb would likely get me banned.
Grow species if you can. Especially from Madagascar.

[camille1585]

Originally Posted by Cym Ladye

Thank you for the excellent definition. However, no where does it mention improved blooming. In orchids, Cymbidiums in my case, I have found that one has to be very careful what species are crossed. If one crosses two parents with vastly disparate cultural requirements, plants may be very vigorous growers but never bloom.

True, but I was speaking about plants in general and not specifically flowering plants like orchids, and my knowledge is based on crop plants, be they agricultural or horticultural. I know that for those crossing 2 pure line homozygous parents can lead to more/larger blooms, among other things.

[Cym Ladye]

In partial reply to Rowan's lengthy comment, I can only say "hybrid selection". I have seen two Cymbidium species that are the product of so much "improved" sibling selection that they actually look like hybrids and have lost many of the characteristics that the species was known for.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Some will say "no", some will find it perfectly acceptable. This is what seems to happen when hybridizers, always with an eye to "improvement", use man-made selection instead of natural selection.

However, I definitely agree with Arena.... Species of all genera should be a part of everyone's collection if they have the proper conditions in which to grow them! I have seen way too many beautiful species die in home collections just because the purchaser thought the flower was "so beautiful" and did not have a clue as to what the plant needed to survive. This is why Arena... is so correct in selfing the species so the natural habitats will not be decimated. Now, all he/she has to do is to convince the native countries of that!

CL

[Rowangreen]

Another interesting point Cym Ladye. It can also be argued that it's basically impossible to keep a species in captivity identical to that in the wild, for the simple reason that the enviroment it's in is different and will therefore select for different characteristics. That might be deliberate selection by humans, it might be side effects of such selection, or it might simply be that the plants that thrive in a flask are going to be different than those that would have best seeded in the wild.

Just to be clear, I think it's great to keep species and to want to preserve them, and it can help to preserve them. However in the long run I do think the bottom line is that if humans keep overbreeding and taking over habitats then the species there are going to disapear. I don't think you can preserve every species on Earth without a planet the size of Earth to keep them on.

[Arenalbotanicalgarden]

Originally Posted by Rowangreen

Another interesting point Cym Ladye. It can also be argued that it's basically impossible to keep a species in captivity identical to that in the wild, for the simple reason that the enviroment it's in is different and will therefore select for different characteristics. That might be deliberate selection by humans, it might be side effects of such selection, or it might simply be that the plants that thrive in a flask are going to be different than those that would have best seeded in the wild.

Just to be clear, I think it's great to keep species and to want to preserve them, and it can help to preserve them. However in the long run I do think the bottom line is that if humans keep overbreeding and taking over habitats then the species there are going to disapear. I don't think you can preserve every species on Earth without a planet the size of Earth to keep them on.

I disagree . I have a friend in Miami who has duplicated Andean conditions and has a few thousand plants. Yes. Not everyone can pull that off but people with re$$$ources should___be they so inclined.

[Cym Ladye]

Originally Posted by Rowangreen

........ It can also be argued that it's basically impossible to keep a species in captivity identical to that in the wild, for the simple reason that the enviroment it's in is different and will therefore select for different characteristics. That might be deliberate selection by humans, it might be side effects of such selection, or it might simply be that the plants that thrive in a flask are going to be different than those that would have best seeded in the wild.

I probably have one of the more complete Cym species collections among orchid growers. I have collected plants, sib bred plants and self bred plants. I have some divisions of old plants that are over 100 years old (virus free) and look the same now as they did when first photographed. Any difference in appearance I would attribute to having optimum growing conditions on my benches instead of surviving in the wild. Genetically, they are the same.

However, your point of changes occurring due to different plant's "survival' rate in flask is in interesting one. ie. we are developing a line of "hot house babies" so to speak. It is still a matter of survival of the fittest in my flasks, and weak ones are eliminated, as I believe they would be in nature.

CL

[Rowangreen]

So, you are saying that your friend has a set up that not only perfectly replicates the climate of a particular place in the Andeas, but also includes competition from other none-orchid plants, insect pollinators and pests, fungi species, mammals, birds etc. And he allows the orchids to seed naturally, rather than putting them in flasks?

If not, then he is not perfectly replicating the conditions in the Andeas. Over generations his plants will probably lose resistance to disease. Eventually they may be unable to reproduce without flasking.

And does he have a mate who's duplicating the different conditions on the next ridge to the site he's duplicating?

And what happens in a couple of hundred years, if humans keep breeding at current rates, and not only is the hillside he replicated now built on, but the government is re-possessing his home as they need to house more people in that area? No more orchid 'ark' , and nowhere for them to go back to.

Keeping species in captivity is a valuable resource and a way of preserving them in the short term. It is not a long term solution to loss of wild genetic diversity.