Will division alter flower characteristics?

[greenhouseFrog]

I don’t know where I heard or read about this, but it has been bugging me: when Catasetinae are divided, the flowers(color/pattern/shape/number of blooms) would be similar, but not an exact genetic copy of the “donor” plant. Does this way of thinking sound familiar to anybody?

Coincidentally, I also decided to use Chat GPT for the first time today and I asked it a series of questions along the same lines as I stated above and in response the Singularity wrote:

“Not every pseudobulb in a Catasetinae orchid (such as those in the genus Catasetum) is genetically identical. Each pseudobulb arises independently and can be considered a clone of the original plant because it develops from the division of a single meristem. However, genetic mutations or variations can occur during growth, leading to slight differences between pseudobulbs even within the same plant.

Additionally, Catasetinae orchids are known for their unique reproductive strategy where they produce either male or female flowers depending on environmental cues and the specific growth phase of each pseudobulb. This process involves significant differentiation and specialization within each pseudobulb, further emphasizing that they are not genetically identical despite originating from the same parent plant.”

I asked it if every pseudobulb in any given plant was genetically identical—granted that I know nothing about the question or artificial intelligence in the first place, I was impressed in under 5 seconds!

But was it correct?

[Roberta]

I don't see how the various pseudobulbs could be anything but genetically identical - like branches of a tree. They are part of the same plant. Now, any growth of a Catasetum could produces either male or female flowers... sometimes can do both, or even something in between. (Same for Cycnoches... other Catasetinae such as Mormodes and Clowesia are not sexually dimorphic) But no different than new growths on a Cattleya. Part of the same plant, genetically identical. Now, along with differently-gendered flowers, you may get other variations such as depth of color due to environmental conditions, but that is true of orchids in general. It doesn't imply that different growths are genetically different.

[greenhouseFrog]

I must have been experiencing a false memory perhaps influenced by the propagation of certain variegated plants because I would intuitively agree that the pseudobulbs would be genetically the same as the rest of the plant. I’m glad that eventually I may be able to spread around the colors I have—I made a bold move and expanded my “palette” recently!

Thanks for your input on this thread and everywhere else; I didn’t even know about the dimorphic/perfect flowers between the different genera until I saw you all talking about it in another thread! And so the plot thickens…Thanks again!

[estación seca]

It's well known these large dataset machine language programs give incorrect information on a regular basis. It happens especially with science and mathematics.

[Ray]

Yes, all the growths should be genetically identical, but sometime during the differentiation of stem cells, a glitch can happen. It’s rare, but does happen.

Likewise, culture can play a huge role in how the flower may look.

[greenhouseFrog]

@estación seca, it can fool most people most of the time but not everyone all of the time…in certain cases, most people and most of the time is good enough, just not this time! I have to give it credit for writing in a more cohesive manner than some humans though—scary stuff for certain members of our society! Thanks for contributing!

@Ray, thank you for your input—for some reason I was under the impression that glitches were the norm rather than the exception. I’m curious though: could a glitch deviate so drastically from what is being expressed by the rest of the plant that you get something that is outwardly unrecognizable? Thanks again!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by greenhouseFrog

I’m curious though: could a glitch deviate so drastically from what is being expressed by the rest of the plant that you get something that is outwardly unrecognizable? Thanks again!

I doubt any variation would be that drastic. Occasionally, a plant will throw a variegated new growth, for example, but it still looks like the "mother plant".

Cultural differences can mean the difference between, for example, broad, wide leaves versus thin, narrow ones, or the size of the growths.

[Jmoney]

certainly you can have mutation with vegetative growth but it seems to be at a much lower rate (than say mericloning) and I have not seen any literature suggesting catasetinae would have dramatic differences bulb to bulb. neofinetia have a lot more potential variability with vegetative growth, with some varieties known for this phenomenon, but that's kind of an exception it seems.