Nomenclature Question

[SouthPark]

With the system that AOS/RHS follow ------ 'hybrid' will simply be defined as a cross between two different species. The species representative from either side is just 'species' (regardless of same 'sub'-species or different 'sub'-species). This is just what is used in the system that AOS/RHS goes by. This also naturally covers compatibility. So different genus getting crossed successfully ----- is covered too.

For those following a different system ----- where 'hybrid' has extra conditions involved within its definition ------ we just got to make sure that who-ever we're talking to is on the 'same page' ----- as in stating what system that our communications is going to be based on ----- prior to discussions about Neofinetia.

[Shoreguy]

I give you props for what you just wrote. Obviously well thought out.

However it doesn't follow the guideline set by my original post of this thread.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Shoreguy

If two pure named and registered Neofinetia falcatas are crossed, are the offspring referred to as Neofinetias or Neofinetia hybrids?

They would be referred to as Neofinetia - first and foremost. Otherwise, these orchids wouldn't be Neofinetia in the first place. The offspring would actually be Neofinetia falcata, and other descriptions could be tacked on the end ---- such as 'registered cross name' - that's if the cross becomes registered.

And then, after that - you will probably need to mention what you mean by 'two pure named and registered falcatas'.

Does it mean that both of those registered ones are assumed to be different 'sub-species'? That is, both of them have their own particular common traits ------ in which crossing any two plants within one registered group consistently produces plants having the same common traits?

So - what you call them (in addition to the base information - ie. Neofinetia) can be clarified by adding extra information - that provides a more solid account of the origins of the results of the cross. So the extra information will be 'hybrid'. And you can also add - if the two parents were from different 'sub-species' (if assumed) ------ the term 'intra-specific hybrid'. In that way - the more information you provide (for clarity), then the smaller the chance becomes for anybody to get the wrong idea about what you wish to convey.

What is really important in good communications is ------- everybody just needs to be on the same page, and we need to strive toward being unambiguous in what we write or say. And ----- if we pre-establish what 'system' we're going to use for the communications ------ and everybody is clear about it, then that will go a long way toward everybody properly understanding each other ------ such as with the 'hybrid' definition.

[SouthPark]

Also adding ------- if we happen to follow system that AOS/RHS follows, then we can't define hybrid in the way they do for the other Neofinetia cohort ------ as the system followed by AOS doesn't accommodate intraspecific names. That is - it doesn't recognise hybrids of the intraspecific category.

So ...... regarding the sort of 'hybrid' that you are referring to ------- that particular definition isn't accommodated within :

Originally Posted by Shoreguy

Please answer this question only in reference to Neofinetias.

[Ray]

If we cross Laelia anceps ‘A’ with L. anceps ‘B’, the results is still considered the species, and the progeny will display a blend of traits ranging from 100% A and 0% B to 0% A and 100% B. It is an inter specific cross and we could call it a “cultivar hybrid”, but mostly don’t.

“Neo folks” take a different approach. Since they are playing with a much smaller Lego set, the “uniqueness” of each individual assembly takes on far more importance.

[My Green Pets]

It wouldn't be Neofinetia at all. Neofinetia was reclassified to Vanda some years ago. So it would be an intraspecific Vanda hybrid, although I don't know how to reflect that in the nomenclature.

Actually, that's a good clarifying question. How are the traditional Japanese cultivar names reflected in the nomenclature? In the AOS awards, the Japanese name is in parentheses, while the cultivar is given in single quotes...is this just how the AOS does it, or is this the taxonomically correct way?

For example:
Vanda falcata (Manjushage) 'Benin' AM/AOS

[Hakumin]

Honestly, everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions, and assuming that because shoreguy even asked, that there must be some unique naming circumstance with Neos in this respect. There really isn't.

The offspring of a pure Neofinetia falcata cultivar crossed with another pure Neofinetia falcata cultivar, is never considered "hybrid" by any normal neo grower or breeder. The use of the english word hybrid is no different in the context of Neos as it is with the rest of the orchid world.

While the concept of intraspecific hybrids does exist outside of the world of orchid and Neo horticulture, it is not used in the context of orchids and Neos with any amount of regularity, and is pretty much never going to be encountered in any publication or conversation.

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by My Green Pets

Actually, that's a good clarifying question. How are the traditional Japanese cultivar names reflected in the nomenclature?

This has been spoken about elsewhere in other threads, but, according to the RHS and the International Code for the Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, for all plants, the Japanese cultivar names (regardless of whether they are written in Japanese script or transcribed into the roman alphabet) are to be written in the exact same notation as western cultivar names. Japanese cultivar names are no different than western cultivar names in any way other than the language used.

Originally Posted by My Green Pets

In the AOS awards, the Japanese name is in parentheses, while the cultivar is given in single quotes...is this just how the AOS does it, or is this the taxonomically correct way?

For example:
Vanda falcata (Manjushage) 'Benin' AM/AOS

This notation is only used by the AOS and its offshoots.

The taxonomically correct way follows the ICNCP, and for your example it would simply be Vanda falcata 'Benin', with the understanding that it is a cultivar derived from another cultivar, Vanda falcata 'Manjushage'. Both would be proper cultivars with one simply being derived from the other.

The reason many western orchid growers have a hard time reconciling traditional Neo cultivar names with AOS awarded cultivar names is because the AOS has adopted the word cultivar but chooses to use a different definition for the word than the original meaning or the formal definition provided by the ICNCP. (The RHS on the other hand, who is a major contributor to the ICNCP, seems to have chosen to stay out of it and states that they do not record cultivar names for orchids, only grexes)

So, when you're speaking about the AOS and their methods, use their notation. When talking about the world outside of the AOS, use their accepted standards. Unfortunately—at least unfortunate for the sake of universal clarity—there's no single correct notation method that fits all contexts, which makes it important to be precise and clear when there is potential for confusion.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Hakumin

Honestly, everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions, and assuming that because shoreguy even asked, that there must be some unique naming circumstance with Neos in this respect. There really isn't.

We're not jumping to conclusions. We can call an orchid whatever we want. Whether the information is useful to anybody or not will depend on how much factual data and information that comes with a particular orchid ----- such as data/info from a particular organisation that is meant to 'officially' keep track of orchid information.

And true ----- MGP is right in that Neofinetia has now got lumped into the Vanda area ------ by RHS/AOS that is. But - as mentioned ------ just got to communicate in the language of the particular system we want to use.

Originally Posted by My Green Pets

In the AOS awards, the Japanese name is in parentheses, while the cultivar is given in single quotes...is this just how the AOS does it, or is this the taxonomically correct way?

This brings up a nice point! As awarded plants get cultivar names attached to it, while unawarded ones (or ...... including ones from unawarded registered crosses) don't get cultivar names stored in an official database - for the RHS/AOS system. As in just not to over-complicate the situation ----- as there's bound to be errors and unforeseen issues later down the track with too much book-keeping.

Originally Posted by Hakumin

Unfortunately—at least unfortunate for the sake of universal clarity—there's no single correct notation method that fits all contexts, which makes it important to be precise and clear when there is potential for confusion.

That definitely sums it up nicely! Even the RHS is always doing updates on their system - changing plant categories ------- a whole bunch of things to take care of. The system is still changing ------ evolving, adapting.