Encyclia Hybrid Name Confusion 'Help'

[Haiku859]

Okay here it is...How is it, according to the International Orchid Register. The cross encyclia (Orchid Jungle x cordigera ) = Enc. Didgeridoo

But if you type it in vise versa (cordigera x Orchid Jungle ) it = Enc. Cashen's Chocolate rose?

And even more confusing, at least to me, is if you type in Enc. Cashen's Chocolate rose looking for the parentage it yields no results??

Help!

[gnathaniel]

Welcome to OrchidBoard, Haiku!

The RHS lists Didgeridoo as a synonym, so Cashens' Chocolate Rose was registered first (1996, as opposed to 2006 for the other). Why the RHS allows these duplicate registrations I don't know.

I was able to look up the Cashens' Chocolate Rose under the parentage search. Make sure you're spelling it correctly, the apostrophe comes after the final S. Hope this helps!

--Nat

[Haiku859]

Hello Nat,

Thank you for the welcome & the info. It seems rather confusing to me that the reciprocal would be named something completely different. This was my 1st time running into this & didn't realize or think it possible.

Thank you I really appreciate it!
Best regards
Steve

[Ray]

There are several cases of the same hybrid registered under different names, as well as cases of two different hybrids registered under the same name. So-far, the registrar has chosen to ignore them.

Then we get into other situations as a result of taxonomists' efforts. Case in point - Phalaenopsis violacea and Phalaenopsis bellina. At one point, the bellina was considered to be a variety of violacea, so we don't know if a hybrid made with "violacea" really was, or was actually a bellina hybrid.

[camille1585]

I had no idea that it was even allowed to register the same cross with different names. I always wondered why Phal stuartiana x schilleriana was called both Phal Wiganiae and Phal schilleriano-stuartiana. Now I know... Outside the registrar does the older name technically take precedence over the more recent one(s)?

[RosieC]

I've had the impression the duplicate naming has been errors in the past during registration. Before computerised records it would be really easy to not realise that was was being registered had already been registered under a different name. Similar with a name getting used twice.

I think the older name takes precedence in this case.

[Haiku859]

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for all your help. I was getting a bit frustrated trying figure out what was going on name wise. Now with the clarification I can correctly label these compots.

Thanks again!
Steve

[Connie Star]

Doesn't the first part of the cross signify the pod parent and the second the pollen parent? So Phal Schillerana x Stuartiana doesn't mean the same thing as the inverse?

[RosieC]

Originally Posted by Connie Star

Doesn't the first part of the cross signify the pod parent and the second the pollen parent? So Phal Schillerana x Stuartiana doesn't mean the same thing as the inverse?

This was being discussed on another thread recently. If it has been recorded correctly then yes the way around denotes which is the pod and which is the pollen parent.

However the hybrid name will be the same whichever way round it was made, both are counted as the same hybrid.

Also, you can't always be sure whoever wrote the tag was careful about which way round it was written. The way the RHS record it is the way it was first registered.

[Royal]

I was always under the impression that reciprocal crosses are not the same hybrid.