Lc. MOONWIND 'MT. MADONNA' (Lc. Eva Shill x Lc. Elizabeth Off). - Orchid Board

piping plover · #1 03-19-2021, 11:25 PM

I wanted to post these photos with the proper identification in case anyone is ever researching this variety and/or parentage.

Lc. MOONWIND 'MT. MADONNA' (Lc. Eva Shill x Lc. Elizabeth Off)

I believe it was introduced in 1986, but am trying to verify.

I posted on another thread that I finally confirmed the identification of this orchid after searching for decades. Here is the title of the thread:"1980s-1990s cattleya mail order catalogs..." if you want to read through all the twists & turns of this NOID mystery.

FairyInTheFlowers · #2 03-20-2021, 01:46 AM

I read through the thread of you trying to find the ID, and it's really amazing to consider the extensive history and legacy of some orchid companies. I'm so glad you found the ID for this!

piping plover · #3 03-20-2021, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairyInTheFlowers

I read through the thread of you trying to find the ID, and it's really amazing to consider the extensive history and legacy of some orchid companies. I'm so glad you found the ID for this!

Thank you for taking interest and for your kind comment. I am just elated to have received all the help from orchid enthusiasts and to have found the name.

Roberta · #4 03-21-2021, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piping plover

I wanted to post these photos with the proper identification in case anyone is ever researching this variety and/or parentage.

Lc. MOONWIND 'MT. MADONNA' (Lc. Eva Shill x Lc. Elizabeth Off)

I believe it was introduced in 1986, but am trying to verify.

I posted on another thread that I finally confirmed the identification of this orchid after searching for decades. Here is the title of the thread:"1980s-1990s cattleya mail order catalogs..." if you want to read through all the twists & turns of this NOID mystery.

Lc Moonwind was registered by Rod McClellan in 1978. (Reference OrchidRoots )

terryros · #5 03-21-2021, 06:10 PM

The only subtle correction I would make is that is currently considered all Cattleya and not Laeliocattleya.

piping plover · #6 03-22-2021, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roberta

Lc Moonwind was registered by Rod McClellan in 1978. (Reference OrchidRoots )

Thank you Roberta for providing that information!

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by terryros

The only subtle correction I would make is that is currently considered all Cattleya and not Laeliocattleya.

Thank you Terryros for that detail. I am assuming that a nomenclature change has occurred then since the 1980's and Lcs are now named under C?

Something I noticed in the information provided about all the Cattleya species that contributed to this parentage is that they are all Cattleya genus and I am not seeing any with Laeila genus, so I am wondering how this orchid was named Lc Moonwind back in the late 1970s and not C. Moonwind.

Can anyone provide some light on this?

Thank you.

Roberta · #7 03-22-2021, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piping plover

Something I noticed in the information provided about all the Cattleya species that contributed to this parentage is that they are all Cattleya genus and I am not seeing any with Laeila genus, so I am wondering how this orchid was named Lc Moonwind back in the late 1970s and not C. Moonwind.

Can anyone provide some light on this?

Thank you.

Lots of genera within the Cattleya group have been reclassified, based on DNA evidence and other factors. For instance, all of the Brazillian Laelias are now Cattleya (but the Mexican Laelias are still Laelia) There are also what used to be considered Cattleya (like aurantiaca and skinneri) that are now considered a separate genus, Guarianthe. So all of that messes with the human-made genus names (nothogenus) It also adds an ambiguity issue where what two plants with the same grex (hybrid) name but different genera (for instance, Lc vs C) were suddenly named the same... that got resolved by adding the year of the name registration to keep them identified. It happened with species too... change the genus, then there is an ambiguity with the species so that ends up changing too. Personally, I'm not changing my tags... I figure that the mental cross references help keep my brain young... Same thing has been going in in the Oncidium and Vandaceous groups... just have to roll with it...

piping plover · #8 03-23-2021, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roberta

Lots of genera within the Cattleya group have been reclassified, based on DNA evidence and other factors. For instance, all of the Brazillian Laelias are now Cattleya (but the Mexican Laelias are still Laelia) There are also what used to be considered Cattleya (like aurantiaca and skinneri) that are now considered a separate genus, Guarianthe. So all of that messes with the human-made genus names (nothogenus) It also adds an ambiguity issue where what two plants with the same grex (hybrid) name but different genera (for instance, Lc vs C) were suddenly named the same... that got resolved by adding the year of the name registration to keep them identified. It happened with species too... change the genus, then there is an ambiguity with the species so that ends up changing too. Personally, I'm not changing my tags... I figure that the mental cross references help keep my brain young... Same thing has been going in in the Oncidium and Vandaceous groups... just have to roll with it...

Thank you once again Roberta for the thorough information. Much appreciated! Yes, I can understand why you wouldn't want to change all your tags. I think of all the plant nomenclature changes that have occurred with ornamental plants that I have learned decades ago.

What I am finding to be curious about this orchid name is that there are no quotations around the name Moonwind, but there are quotations for the 'MT Madonna." So, I interpret this to mean that 'MT Madonna" is the cultivar. So what does that make the Moonwind? Is Moonwind the seedling result of the two parents Lc Eva Shill & Lc Elizabeth Off, and then one of these seedlings had such worthy, notable characteristics that it was selected and named as cultivar "MT Madonna'?

Would Moonwind and MT Madonna each be registered with RHS or would that be redundant because they have the same parentage?

terryros · #9 03-23-2021, 09:56 PM

You have it. Moonwind is the cross of the two parents. Undoubtedly multiple to many plants resulted. Moonwind is then registered with RHS. One particular plant was thought to be special and got a cultivar name. Cultivars are not registered with anyone. Any of us can give a cultivar name to an orchid that comes out of a cross. Awards from the AOS or another countries (or European) orchid society are logged for reference but your tag is not carrying an award. Every awarded plant must be a named cultivar.

Roberta · #10 03-23-2021, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piping plover

What I am finding to be curious about this orchid name is that there are no quotations around the name Moonwind, but there are quotations for the 'MT Madonna." So, I interpret this to mean that 'MT Madonna" is the cultivar. So what does that make the Moonwind? Is Moonwind the seedling result of the two parents Lc Eva Shill & Lc Elizabeth Off, and then one of these seedlings had such worthy, notable characteristics that it was selected and named as cultivar "MT Madonna'?

Would Moonwind and MT Madonna each be registered with RHS or would that be redundant because they have the same parentage?

Right, Moonwind is the name of the grex - the cross of the two parents. Any Lc Eva Shill and Lc Elizabeth Off would carry that name (And it doesn't matter which is the pod parent and which is the pollen parent, both ways will have the same grex name, though the results might be quite different.) And there will be differences in the progeny, like siblings in a family with the same parents will look different. The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) registration is this part of the name. The specific cultivar ('MT Madonna')is given to a specific plant, and so is attached only to other plants that are genetically identical - mericlones and divisions. Cultivars aren't registered, unless a plant is awarded. Then the cultivar name becomes part of the award record - not the name registration. The plant was not awarded, so the cultivar name isn't recorded anywhere... but this likely was a particularly good one, so it got the name (and probably was also mericloned). When one buys a seed cross, it's a "surprise package" ... it may look like its siblings or not. (Maybe the best of the bunch, or not, it's an adventure) A mericlone is a genetic copy, so when a seedling is acquired, it's pretty certain what it will look like.