Oncidium twinkle

[nirsha]

Thank you for this interesting discussion everyone! It was very enlightening. My purpose for knowing the name is that when I post a photo of it online , I would like to name it correctly and not be be challenged by someone about its authenticity.

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by nirsha

Thank you for this interesting discussion everyone! It was very enlightening. My purpose for knowing the name is that when I post a photo of it online , I would like to name it correctly and not be be challenged by someone about its authenticity.

You can label it with the name you think it is followed by "?", or "similar to" or "looks like" with the plausible name. Then there's nothing to challenge... you are placing the plant within a reasonable group, and allowing for uncertainty.

If a plant is submitted for an award by a national organization, or used in breeding where you want to register a name (and therefore a pedigree) precision in naming is important. (Just like for purebred dogs) But for informal judging at shows, or in societies, not important.

[SouthPark]

nirsha ..... Roberta's suggestion is an excellent one. When you write Onc. Twinkle 'Cinnamon'?? with a question mark, or two ----- just to draw extra attention, you're basically conveying your assumption. Writing the assumption is nice, as it provides a protective a shield hehehe

[ArronOB]

Originally Posted by SouthPark

True Roberta. Although - if cost and effort etc wasn't a factor (eg. even massively expensive equipment and incredible cost of testing), then the question I'd like to ask somebody out there is --- would some particular lab in the world today have the capability of doing a DNA comparison match between a confirmed cultivar and a under-test plant?

That would be my question to anybody that can answer that one.

Naturally - if prohibitively expensive (and things like that) ------ then this will be a good reason for the no-id verdict, with current technology.

The answer is that there are many impediments to establishing a cultivar’s genetic identity that do not exist with pure species.

As a rather contrived example : Most orchid cultivars are complex. If a test establishes that a certain hybrid is ,say, 30% Cattleya Labiata, does that mean that it’s ancestry featured one crossing with a parent of that species, or 3 crossings with different hybrids which themselves were 50% C. labiata, or something in between. And remember that these various crossings with a parent with C. labiata may have occurred at any time in the long and complex history of a cultivar and all of its antecedents.

In other words, there are many ways to achieve a 30% mix of C. labiata and all of them will be different cultivars.

So from that necessarily reductionist example we can see that the only time the genetic test would be definitive would be if we could absolutely guarantee that both subjects had only two parents and no more, and each of those parents must have been a pure species. If we knew that, it’s unlikely we would need the test anyway.

[SouthPark]

Hi Arron!! It's possible that my assumption about DNA sequence or maps is wrong ----- or something. I assumed that a DNA map was something like a sequence. And if that sequence is determined, then that would be unique for a particular cultivar. So my assumption was that - if a DNA map for a cultivar is known, then a DNA test for some other orchid (such as the one under test) could then have its map compared with the reference. And if there's any difference ------- ie. no match, then it means not the same 'plant' ...... or not a 'clone' .... or not a division.