C Walkeriana

[Leafmite]

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.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think I have heard that before, too. Opps.

Great to know that it is still a C. walkeriana.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by smweaver

Very pretty flower. I really like the colors. How long has it been open? Hopefully the segments will expand a little more for you. Congrats on the flowers.

today is the 3rd day. I don't think it will get any better. I will see how long the bloom lasts, apparently they are short-lived ? I suppose the trick is to have more than one so you always have that fragrance around. They seem to bloom year round ( except Aug and Sept ) per OrchidWiz reported bloomings.

[isurus79]

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.'

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.

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]

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.

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

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.

Its not my claim. Its only the claim of someone who happens to be one of the world's more preeminent breeders of walkeriana in the world and someone who has physically spoken to the researcher in question. And when you say "you don't need to get into the nitty gritty details of a thread," I can only assume you mean the same thread that makes your "walkeriana" a hybrid, written by someone who knows vastly more about this topic than just about anyone else in the country.

But you're right. Why spend time reading a different opinion than your own that is written by an expert in their field? No reason to do such a thing. None.

[Leafmite]

I find it interesting what Tylerrumn had to say in that long ago post. And, to be honest, this study was done five years ago and much has changed in the technology that allows us to study genetics. A good trial would have indeed involved many more samples for each group and this study would have benefited from genetic samples taken, with permission, from orchids in these groups that were from divisions of those taken from the native habitats and not from orchids that have been bred from flask. The main problem with the conclusion drawn here is that we don't account for the breeding that is being done to win awards at shows (this is why some clones are considered 'superior' to others. Much breeding has been done to improve the quality of the flower or to create new color variations.). If you test all the different variations of C. walkeriana, you are going to find differences in their genes as certain genes control color, petal shape, petal size, etc. Breeders are aiming for certain traits that will allow them to win awards. Mutations happen and when they are for the better, the improved orchid is used heavily in breeding. Many of these superior clones do not perfectly resemble the ones 'in the wild.' That is why I think it is important for the study to use ones that are divisions of the original ones taken from the native habitat to maintain complete accuracy...a baseline, so to speak.
And, really, I have to say this again...five years is a very long time with how fast the field has been moving.
It is due to the recent advancements in the technology used in genetic testing, that we are suddenly having many orchids being moved (once again) and renamed (which is what is driving everyone crazy).

Also, by using orchids that are not grown from flask, we could be certain that they are truly what they are claimed to be.

That is why I don't like the study. However, the study is old and with the current mapping techniques, we should get a clearer idea of the differences between these orchids. The experts who are doing the reclassification of orchids will probably notify the AOS when they have reached a conclusion.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by isurus79

Its not my claim. Its only the claim of someone who happens to be one of the world's more preeminent breeders of walkeriana in the world and someone who has physically spoken to the researcher in question. And when you say "you don't need to get into the nitty gritty details of a thread," I can only assume you mean the same thread that makes your "walkeriana" a hybrid, written by someone who knows vastly more about this topic than just about anyone else in the country.

But you're right. Why spend time reading a different opinion than your own that is written by an expert in their field? No reason to do such a thing. None.

the problem, even if you can't see it, is that you are representing this "opinion" as fact whereas its not, according to the AOS - the official arbiter. I have a walkeriana that is indirectly confirmed as species as it is 'Pendentive' crossed with a coerulea. That is a fact, not my opinion. Someone else's contrary opinion about 'Pendentive' doesn't change that fact.

I took the time to e-mail the AOS to find out the facts, you can't seem to find the time to e-mail them with your issues about their response. Basic commonsense - if you are going to dispute something, go to the person who can resolve the dispute, otherwise you just go round in circles.....which appears to have been happening for the last 5 years as AOS said, and I quote " Without question Pendentive is a walkeriana" and that is in April 2015.

[terryros]

Although I have 3 walkerianas of different types (all from Orchids Limited) and am bothered by any walkeriana that doesn't have its flower spike as a separate spike off of the rhizome rather than coming from the leaf axil, I know that there are many different orchid species about which there is controversy.

In some of these species debates there are groups of experts on each side.

My specific question about the most recent part of this discussion concerns the AOS role in these kinds of things. I know that the RHS is the body that establishes naming rights for hybrids. The AOS doesn't have authority over naming of hybrids.

When it comes to taxonomic naming rights of genera and species (including recent genetic information) which body officially decides things? I know it exists and it isn't the AOS. Is it under the RHS or something completely different? They would be the body that would have to pass on this issue of different varieties of walkeriana.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[isurus79]

Originally Posted by Leafmite

I find it interesting what Tylerrumn had to say in that long ago post. And, to be honest, this study was done five years ago and much has changed in the technology that allows us to study genetics. A good trial would have indeed involved many more samples for each group and this study would have benefited from genetic samples taken, with permission, from orchids in these groups that were from divisions of those taken from the native habitats and not from orchids that have been bred from flask. The main problem with the conclusion drawn here is that we don't account for the breeding that is being done to win awards at shows (this is why some clones are considered 'superior' to others. Much breeding has been done to improve the quality of the flower or to create new color variations.). If you test all the different variations of C. walkeriana, you are going to find differences in their genes as certain genes control color, petal shape, petal size, etc. Breeders are aiming for certain traits that will allow them to win awards. Mutations happen and when they are for the better, the improved orchid is used heavily in breeding. Many of these superior clones do not perfectly resemble the ones 'in the wild.' That is why I think it is important for the study to use ones that are divisions of the original ones taken from the native habitat to maintain complete accuracy...a baseline, so to speak.
And, really, I have to say this again...five years is a very long time with how fast the field has been moving.
It is due to the recent advancements in the technology used in genetic testing, that we are suddenly having many orchids being moved (once again) and renamed (which is what is driving everyone crazy).

Also, by using orchids that are not grown from flask, we could be certain that they are truly what they are claimed to be.

That is why I don't like the study. However, the study is old and with the current mapping techniques, we should get a clearer idea of the differences between these orchids. The experts who are doing the reclassification of orchids will probably notify the AOS when they have reached a conclusion.

Wild types would likely provide very good information, however this is a species with fanatical devotion around the world, so tracing lineage is relatively easy for many plants. Having wild types in several clades compared with line bred plants in separate clades would actually provide the best information and a comparison between the two might actually clarify the issue.

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

the problem, even if you can't see it, is that you are representing this "opinion" as fact whereas its not, according to the AOS - the official arbiter. I have a walkeriana that is indirectly confirmed as species as it is 'Pendentive' crossed with a coerulea. That is a fact, not my opinion. Someone else's contrary opinion about 'Pendentive' doesn't change that fact.

I took the time to e-mail the AOS to find out the facts, you can't seem to find the time to e-mail them with your issues about their response. Basic commonsense - if you are going to dispute something, go to the person who can resolve the dispute, otherwise you just go round in circles.....which appears to have been happening for the last 5 years as AOS said, and I quote " Without question Pendentive is a walkeriana" and that is in April 2015.

You still need to read Harry's article to get a background on what the experts are saying. Ignoring preeminent expertise that disputes your own thoughts on an issue doesn't make you more educated on the topic; in fact it does just the opposite. The fact that AOS has not done scientific work but are relying on "opinions" from experts doesn't somehow make their opinion a fact either. However, I am a student judge and one of my mentors is on the AOS board of trustees; so yesterday I began emailing the AOS higher ups to do what I can with regards to getting further clarification on the issue.

Originally Posted by terryros

Although I have 3 walkerianas of different types (all from Orchids Limited) and am bothered by any walkeriana that doesn't have its flower spike as a separate spike off of the rhizome rather than coming from the leaf axil, I know that there are many different orchid species about which there is controversy.

In some of these species debates there are groups of experts on each side.

My specific question about the most recent part of this discussion concerns the AOS role in these kinds of things. I know that the RHS is the body that establishes naming rights for hybrids. The AOS doesn't have authority over naming of hybrids.

When it comes to taxonomic naming rights of genera and species (including recent genetic information) which body officially decides things? I know it exists and it isn't the AOS. Is it under the RHS or something completely different? They would be the body that would have to pass on this issue of different varieties of walkeriana.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You're right that the AOS doesn't have taxonomic naming rights, but as I mentioned previously, there is a committee dedicated to verifying the true identity of awarded plants. 'Kenny' (which is the offspring of 'Pendentive') was once classified as walkeriana and was officially changed by said committee from walkeriana to Snow Blind.

I'm also glad you brought up the fact that this "walkeriana" doesn't even look like walkeriana! That seems to have gotten lost in the conversation! On the first page, I detailed why the flower doesn't conform to walkeriana shape standards and you're right to point out the absence of a growth dedicated to the flower spike. However, walkeriana can bloom on typical growths like this one and coeruleas do this more often that tipos. Some walkeriana crosses (like Aloha Case) can even bloom with the typical walkeriana habit on a new growth! So the bloom habit is not a definitive standard of walkeriana purity on its own, but it certainly is one more piece of the information pie to examine.

[orchidsarefun]

Originally Posted by isurus79

However, I am a student judge and one of my mentors is on the AOS board of trustees; so yesterday I began emailing the AOS higher ups to do what I can with regards to getting further clarification on the issue.

Well its about time you stepped up to the plate to get the reasoning ( and dispute it ? ) as to why AOS have classified 'Pendentive' as a walkeriana. I have been careful not to show any confirmation bias in my responses, having gone to AOS for clarification once my walkeriana was called a hybrid. Its a pity that this issue is apparently still an issue for some after at least 5 years. The circumstances are 'fishy' to say the least. I ask the AOS about it and get a same day response.

I have also asked AOS for further comment and will post their response- as I did before.

The irony in this is that I do not specialise in Catts, I have a single walkeriana and thus have no 'skin in the game.'
The AOS is the 'ruling body' in the matter. You seem to agree with that ? They reclassified 'Kenny'. Its disingenuous to agree with the Kenny ruling but then say "The fact that AOS has not done scientific work but are relying on "opinions" from experts doesn't somehow make their opinion a fact either."