Question for Hybridizers

[flhiker]

I have been listening to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. and I seem to be missing something. If hybrids are sterile, how is it that you are able to get a past the primary hybrid?

[Ordphien]

Hybrids aren't sterile normally to my knowledge.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[flhiker]

Hmmm! I think I've heard people say here that hybrids are for he most part sterile. thanks for the reply.

[Ordphien]

I don't really have any room to talk about this though lol...
I'm not exactly versed in this area.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[tucker85]

Most hybrids are not sterile but some are. When you cross orchids that are closely related they are usually fertile and can be used for further breeding. But some orchid hybrids wind up being sterile or others are just very difficult to breed.

[flhiker]

Thanks Tucker, His book refers to variety's and different species. I need to re listen to that chapter. Maybe he was talking about in nature. or between unrelated species.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by flhiker

Thanks Tucker, His book refers to variety's and different species. I need to re listen to that chapter. Maybe he was talking about in nature. or between unrelated species.

Don't forget that darwin was writing in what, 1860? Things have advanced in the understanding of inheritance, since then, and Darwin was mostly dealing with animals in his book, which in most cases do produce sterile offspring.

With plants, species isolation does not necessarily require genetic barriers as geographic isolation and pollinator specificity are generally enough to keep the Sophronitis out of the woodpile, as it were. Why waste time and energy evolving genetic barriers when you can just evolve to utilize different pollinators, or have your pollen adhere to a different spot on the bee than others related to you?

Most things on the planet didn't see us coming, so they didn't bother evolving against great clumsy apes with toothpicks running about muddying the genes up.

-Ceci

---------- Post added at 07:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Hell, not only has understanding of inheritance changed in the last 100+ years, but understanding of how things actually relate to each other genetically, at all. Remember, when Darwin wrote The Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, pretty much everything in the laeliinae except Cattleyas were Epidendrum. Darwin got it on the gist of things, but his inspiration must be considered with context. Hell, not just time, but Darwin's own perspective. After all, he wasn't even a scientist, in the strict sense. He was an inspired dilettante with an earth-shattering Idea and the patience to make the observances to back it up.

-Ceci

[tucker85]

All living organisms on earth are related but they need to be closely related to breed and have fertile offspring. Some organisms are related closely enough to breed and have offspring but are far enough apart on the evolutionary tree that the offspring won't be fertile. A good example is a horse and a donkey. They're related and they can breed but the result is always a mule. A mule is bigger and stronger than either parent but is always sterile.

[flhiker]

it's beginning to sink in. he also referred to the same cross and basically the same tree reference. Thanks again. I think I will still redo the chapter, I can be a little thick.

[Wild Orchid]

Originally Posted by flhiker

I have been listening to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.....

I didn't know he was still around! LOL