Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulpes Velox
true, however.. this is because they are looking at the entire genome. that is not needed to just identify the species, you can just look at a specific sequence. it greatly reduces cost and can be done very fast.
|
Vulpes,
I don't think that using specific sequences of an accession is accurate for identification purposes (please correct me if I'm wrong). However, identifying
relationships between species (and even genera) has proven more accurate. This approach is being used to rid of
Dracula xenos from the genus
Dracula.
It should be remembered that we are looking at a small piece of something huge, and not to uphold it as a definite answer, but a 'tool'. Let the
Prosthechea scheme be a better example of how definite molecular evidence really is.

Still, nothing can override morphology; it can just make it more useful.
Lastly, assuming a person had a Brassalaeliocattleya hybrid that they wanted to know what species and hybrids it is comprised of, and if there were many Cattleya multigeneric hybrid accessions (and there were some HUGE steps made! lol), it would be the equivalent of finding the needle in the haystack, on fire, blindfolded, and hands tied.
Chances are, that person would be better off guessing not only the parentage in their hybrid, but the exact date, time, and location Jim Carey will say something funny... there wouldn't be a person out there willing to waste valuable time and money in entering in random hybrids to be accessed later. That time and money can be put in 'checking' intergeneric and intrageneric relationships, which is the sole use of 'DNA testing' concerning orchids.
Lisa,
Do you have a pic of the plant you are curious about its parentage? Sometimes, primary and natural hybrids are more apparent in what their parentage can be...
-Pat