And of course increased understanding of things like epigenetics.
In Darwin's day, they didn't really understand inheritance at all (at least not in anything we'd consider today to be "detail"); once we'd worked out what DNA was (and how it was responsible for inheritance, a surprisingly recent finding; for a long time, protein was suspected to be behind inheritance, as people couldn't imagine how just 4 bases could "code" for so much complexity) things started making a lot more sense.
Mendel was the first person to recognised that inheritance followed distinct "packets" of inheritance (we call these genes or alleles now). If you're not familiar with this part of the history of science (DNA as the molecule of inheritance)
DNA and Molecular Genetics gives a nice overview.
Ploidy isn't the only barrier; chromosome number can also play a role. (
Ploidy = the numbers of copies of a chromosome you have in a cell). Humans are diploid, their gametes, haploid. Chromosome number in humans is 46 (23 pairs). Having extra copies of a particular chromosome can cause severe problems, most of which are called "death" (most commonly of early stage embryos), but a few go on to produce conditions like Downs Syndrome and intersex (e.g. XXY).
Unequal chromosome numbers cause difficulties when cells divide; this is one of the major reasons mules are usually sterile. Similarly, look at the table on the second page of
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/82/2/189.full.pdf You'll see lots of "intergeneric" hybrids between Laelias and Cattleyas (n=40) and Vanda, Rhychostylis, Neofinetia and Phalaenopsis (n=38), but I don't recall any hybrids between those two. Indeed, to a large extent, the "alliance" concept tends to group together plants with similar chromosome numbers which tend to hybridise fairly freely, even between genera. This is not particularly surprising, as Alliances tend to also more or less follow taxonomic groupings (families and the like) too, although I suppose some are probably para- or poly- phyletic (I haven't looked at this in detail).
I'm not sure if this is a factor in orchids, but you do also get a barrier called "Cytoplasmic Incompatibility" -
Cytoplasmic incompatibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------
Flhiker - not sure if this discussion has clarified the topic to you at all?
The key is perhaps to realise that
not all hybrids are sterile. The orchids are a relatively young group that doesn't seem to have as many barriers to hybridisation as some others may. In addition, humans with toothpicks and the like then surmount many natural "barriers" to interbreeding such a geography, pollinator specificity and even seasonality of blooming.
Many orchid hybrids are indeed sterile "dead ends" with regards to future breeding (like many triploids), but with meristem culture, and repeated crossing of the parents, you can get lots of those plants anyway (just like you can get lots of mules by repeatedly mating horses and donkeys).
You may find it useful to know about the various "
species concepts" in biology, knowing that not a single one of them is globally applicable across all groups, nor accepted by all biologists (a species is an artificial construct used by humans to make more sense of the world).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
Also, of course, until Darwin (and his contemporaries) most people thought of species as fixed; they didn't think that they could change through time (evolution), and it wasn't obvious to all that there were distinct lineages of things which were derived from common ancestors. Once you take on board the
Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the further developments to it, the biological world starts to make a lot more sense.
Hope this helps!