Pollination of orchids

[rtbaum]

This may be of interest:

The Little Boy Who Should’ve Vanished, but Didn’t – Phenomena: Curiously Krulwich

[Possum-Pie]

I'd like to understand the argument for taxonomic purity more clearly b/c aside from the pure science of classification (which really should be done in the natural habitat NOT from a plant someone bought at a shoppe somewhere) I don't see much value in it.
200 years ago "corn" was a thin non-descript plant that had a dozen small hard kernels. Through cross breeding we developed the huge sweet ears known today. Nature evolves plants without any 'purpose' other than passing along their "Selfish Genes" to the next generation. Human manipulation can result in prettier flowers, odorous varieties, more tolerance to environmental changes, and desiese resistance. Just one single undocumented pollenation with an orchid not of the same genus/species/subspecies will "contaminate" the line anyway, and considering that the very first orchids brought back from their original habitats were done hundreds of years ago by amature botanists, there is really no way of knowing short of DNA comparison if any particular clade is "pure"

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ----------

Originally Posted by rtbaum

This may be of interest:

The Little Boy Who Should’ve Vanished, but Didn’t – Phenomena: Curiously Krulwich

Very interesting! I'd love to try to grow/pollenate Vanilla myself, but I fear I'm far too inexperienced. Good article though!

[Fairorchids]

What I am objecting to, is the suggestion that a grower can assign a random name and sell the plants under such an un-registered name.

Random plants can certainly be sold as 'White Phalaenopsis'. But selling them as 'Phalaenopsis Mrs Ethel Brown' (made up name) is highly unethical, and technically constitutes fraud.

[Possum-Pie]

Originally Posted by Fairorchids

What I am objecting to, is the suggestion that a grower can assign a random name and sell the plants under such an un-registered name.

Random plants can certainly be sold as 'White Phalaenopsis'. But selling them as 'Phalaenopsis Mrs Ethel Brown' (made up name) is highly unethical, and technically constitutes fraud.

I understand. However taxonomic naming has a notoriously poor track record including the confusing practice of "first discoverer gets to name". Australopithicus is a misleading genus name meaning "southern ape" and has no logical meaning today, yet b/c it was first named so, it cannot be changed. Even more absurdly is that if ever a fossil of Australopithicus is found in a forgotten drawer in a museum with an older date and different name, EVERY specimen and every textbook in the world would have to be changed to reflect the older name. Some scientists spend too much energy on quibbling about naming...!

[rtbaum]

Actually, the invention of corn goes back much further than 200 years, The Story of Corn - History Detective - In the Beginning

[Possum-Pie]

Originally Posted by rtbaum

Actually, the invention of corn goes back much further than 200 years, The Story of Corn - History Detective - In the Beginning

Thanks for the great link. Yes, you are correct. I was over-simplifying to 200 years based on the fairly modern deliberate cross pollinations to increase ear size and sweetness of modern hybrid corns. One great human discovery was the concept that it is better to eat the worst of a planting and save the best to replant than the more "common sense" idea to eat the best and save the worst for replanting. Planting the best corn kernels leads to selective genetic reproduction of bigger and sweeter ears.