C Walkeriana - Page 3 - Orchid Board

orchidsarefun · #1 04-24-2015, 11:13 AM

I sent an e-mail to AOS ( I'm a member ) regarding this issue. Let's see what they have to say as I'm curious. If anyone has to set the record straight, its them - including the AOS awards listing that currently shows 'Kenny' and 'Pendentive' as walkeriana. There are no AOS awards for C Snow Blind var 'Pendentive' - well at least reported in OrchidWiz. Snow Blind was registered in 1986 btw, so there has been plenty of time to correct the record, if it has to be.

isurus79 · #2 04-23-2015, 11:14 PM

This is definitely a hybrid. First of all, its a descendant from 'Pendentive,' which is a parent of 'Kenny;' a well known hybrid.

Next, the side-lobes on this one merge into the lip, which is a dead give-away that its a hybrid. Finally, the large white "splotch" on the lip is also indicative of a hybrid walkeriana. Going by the lineage and the look of the flower, its very likely that loddigesii is in the background of this plant. It still very nice and I hope that the walkeriana scent comes in for you as the flower matures.

Leafmite · #3 04-24-2015, 11:34 AM

It is weird that the AOS hasn't renamed it if it is a distinct species. There has been so much splitting and renaming lately that I can't see why they missed this one. Until the AOS gets around to changing the name, though, it seems like 'Pendentive' is still technically considered a walkeriana for the sake of naming purposes. Confusing but it is not really orchidsarefun's fault (or that of the breeder's).
The question is, how different do orchids need to be from one another before they are their own species? How many mutations are allowed before an breeding line of orchids becomes a new species? I have seen some species orchids that are very different from the original in appearance after years of breeding for certain traits. What about breeding out a necessary part of a species's survival in the wild, such as fragrance? If a species depends on the fragrance to attract pollinators, how can we say it is the same orchid without the fragrance?
I think, one of these days, the AOS is going to have to decide where they will draw the line.

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I sent an e-mail to AOS ( I'm a member ) regarding this issue. Let's see what they have to say as I'm curious. If anyone has to set the record straight, its them - including the AOS awards listing that currently shows 'Kenny' and 'Pendentive' as walkeriana. There are no AOS awards for C Snow Blind var 'Pendentive' - well at least reported in OrchidWiz. Snow Blind was registered in 1986 btw, so there has been plenty of time to correct the record, if it has to be.

It was awarded as a walkeriana 'Kenny' to Seagrove orchids. Then the debate began. I have this one, dolosa and a plain walkeriana, with two Mini Purples thrown into the mix. It will be great to hear what the AOS has to say.
I know our OS has quite a few people that keep up with all the name changes and we've had some speakers that have been judges for a long, long time and it seems everyone is getting fed up with it all. It is a pretty hot topic right now at OS meetings.

orchidsarefun · #4 04-24-2015, 11:41 AM

Leafmite - agreed.
Another one that causes just as heated debates over what it is or isn't, is Phal tetraspis vs Phal speciosa; specifically the cultivar referred to as 'C1'. Its relevant to me as I have 2 hybrid crosses which I will eventually register when they bloom and I don't want to confuse the issue even further by registering the wrong parent.

my "walkeriana" has now the most incredible fragrance. I can see why people rave about it....

Leafmite · #5 04-24-2015, 12:41 PM

When the time comes to register your crosses, the best thing to do is to ask someone who is current with all the names before you register...or to ask the AOS. That is the only way to be certain.
Some orchid people with whom I have spoken are questioning whether orchids need to be split for every variation or whether, if they are similar enough, they should stay together. It is quite a debate. Mutations happen all the time and with breeding for flatter, larger, rounder, etc. and other such traits and you have many 'varieties' of some species orchids. How differently genetically do orchids need to be before they are in a different group? If the ancestors are all derived from the same orchid but they are unrecognizable as the species, are they still that species? Do we make them a new species or do we just let clone names or terms define them? It will be interesting but with all the breeding that is happening, I think the AOS needs to make some guidelines.

Aki_James · #6 04-24-2015, 12:45 PM

I think this is a case of " too many hands in the pot" when it comes to species identification. This has been an issue since the beginning of time. If you do research on any species in any genera you will see list of known synonyms. I think this is what they have been trying to fix with the genetic testing and reclassification they have been doing but I believe they they should just use the keep it simple stupid method.....after all evolution and mutation is infinite in nature. I hope they don't start re classifying humans...I wonder what variant I would be...but in the end I'm still just a homo sapiens even if I don't look like any other member of my species.

katrina · #7 04-24-2015, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leafmite

It is weird that the AOS hasn't renamed it if it is a distinct species. There has been so much splitting and renaming lately that I can't see why they missed this one. Until the AOS gets around to changing the name....

I could be wrong but I don't believe the AOS is the party in charge of changing names and/or any other taxonomy issue. They follow the lead but I don't think they are the entity that makes the decision regarding these matters.

orchidsarefun · #8 04-24-2015, 03:36 PM

I received an 'official' response from AOS ( that was quick ) and I have cut and pasted from the e-mail :

Thank you for your email. I have consulted with one of our foremost experts and this is his reply to your query:

"Cattleya walkeriana 'Pendentive' has clearly been shown genetically to be a walkeriana. That work was done by Yukawa a number of years ago. His work looked very carefully at the sequencing of a large number of walkeriana cultivars and specimens that could be traced back to jungle collection. Pendentive is not, as was speculated, the result of a selfing of 'Orchidglade' but Jones & Scully never really said it was. What they indicated was that it might have but there was no definitive proof. In the sequencing study, Pendentive is very closely related to a white cultivar from Japan called, I believe, Sakura and is likely from a selfing of that cultivar or a sibbing with a sister seedling. Without question Pendentive is a walkeriana.

Kenny, on the other hand is clearly not a walkeriana but is of hybrid origin. It falls in the sequence between dolosa and walkeriana. It is also not a dolosa based on its position on the tree. The closest hybrid that makes sense is C. Snow Blind and as a result the AOS award record has been altered to reflect that. You will find the award to 'Kenny' listed as C. Snow Blind 'Kenny', FCC/AOS. The awards to Pendentive remain as C. walkeriana."

I trust that this clarifies the issue.

Based on the above explanation, my walkeriana IS a walkeriana and not a hybrid. If anything OrchidWiz is incorrect in that it still shows 'Kenny' as being awarded under walkeriana. Maybe their data download can't handle a retrospective data change.
Anyone is free to dispute the AOS response, but obviously the appropriate avenue would be direct to AOS as they are the arbiter of record.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

update. Bloom is sweetly fragrant. Looks a bit lop-sided as if someone pinched the bud on one side when it was developing, but I will take it. Colour is great.
Hopefully it will be better when it blooms again.......hopefully later this year.

isurus79 · #9 04-25-2015, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I sent an e-mail to AOS ( I'm a member ) regarding this issue. Let's see what they have to say as I'm curious. If anyone has to set the record straight, its them - including the AOS awards listing that currently shows 'Kenny' and 'Pendentive' as walkeriana. There are no AOS awards for C Snow Blind var 'Pendentive' - well at least reported in OrchidWiz. Snow Blind was registered in 1986 btw, so there has been plenty of time to correct the record, if it has to be.

Just for sake of clarity, I never said 'Pendentive' was Snow Blind, just 'Kenny.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by katrina

I could be wrong but I don't believe the AOS is the party in charge of changing names and/or any other taxonomy issue. They follow the lead but I don't think they are the entity that makes the decision regarding these matters.

Katrina,
You're right that AOS doesn't make taxonomic decisions; however, they do have a task force that investigates the veracity of the species or hybrid designation for awarded plants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

I received an 'official' response from AOS ( that was quick ) and I have cut and pasted from the e-mail :

Thank you for your email. I have consulted with one of our foremost experts and this is his reply to your query:

"Cattleya walkeriana 'Pendentive' has clearly been shown genetically to be a walkeriana. That work was done by Yukawa a number of years ago. His work looked very carefully at the sequencing of a large number of walkeriana cultivars and specimens that could be traced back to jungle collection. Pendentive is not, as was speculated, the result of a selfing of 'Orchidglade' but Jones & Scully never really said it was. What they indicated was that it might have but there was no definitive proof. In the sequencing study, Pendentive is very closely related to a white cultivar from Japan called, I believe, Sakura and is likely from a selfing of that cultivar or a sibbing with a sister seedling. Without question Pendentive is a walkeriana.

Kenny, on the other hand is clearly not a walkeriana but is of hybrid origin. It falls in the sequence between dolosa and walkeriana. It is also not a dolosa based on its position on the tree. The closest hybrid that makes sense is C. Snow Blind and as a result the AOS award record has been altered to reflect that. You will find the award to 'Kenny' listed as C. Snow Blind 'Kenny', FCC/AOS. The awards to Pendentive remain as C. walkeriana."

I trust that this clarifies the issue.

Based on the above explanation, my walkeriana IS a walkeriana and not a hybrid. If anything OrchidWiz is incorrect in that it still shows 'Kenny' as being awarded under walkeriana. Maybe their data download can't handle a retrospective data change.
Anyone is free to dispute the AOS response, but obviously the appropriate avenue would be direct to AOS as they are the arbiter of record.

You seem not to have read the link I provided that discusses why the study done by Mr. Yukawa is not considered a valid piece of information. Basically, Mr. Yukawa was not aware of the 'Pendentive' lineage and included many of its progeny in its genetic comparison groups. Different groups of walkeriana were examined for genetic distinction from 'Pendentive' and many of its offspring were used as "pure walkeriana;" which obviously invalidates the results! Harry Akagi (aka catwalker808) obtained this information by speaking to Mr. Yukawa and has agreed to assist in further studies on the genetic purity of 'Pendentive.' I suggest you read the post for yourself. Its very informative.

orchidsarefun · #10 04-25-2015, 09:56 PM

Isurus79 - if you feel so strongly about this issue, why don't you take it up with AOS, as they are the "official" arbiter of record ? They answered my e-mail the same day I sent it. Further - if they respond to me by saying its a walkeriana "without question", then something really doesn't make sense between what you are saying ( it's a hybrid ) and what they said. What happened between Feb 2010 ( date of Harry's thread ) and April 2015 that you don't appear to be aware of ? Or they don't appear to be aware of ? If Yukawa's study is not considered a "valid piece of information" ( your claim ) and AOS refers to it in the opposite sense - then someone needs to get the facts straight ?
I said it before, and I will say it again - if AOS officials, and the breeder, say I have a species walkeriana, then I'm happy. I don't need to get into the nitty gritty details of a thread, the conclusion to which has apparently gone nowhere in 5 years because its pointless whether I agree or not.