Malformed CMomilani Rainbow 'The Gypsy'

[rochelle@58]

This orchid had 10 blooms and only one was malformed. Looks like it has 2 lips. Wonder what happened?

[Cym Ladye]

This is a fairly common problem with the over mericloning of some cultivars resulting in a mutation. Some flowers will try to form segments looking like lips. If all the blooms do this symetrically and bloom this way every year, they are termed peloric and many people love and collect them! I suspect yours will bloom normally next year as only one flower has been affected.

CL

[PaphMadMan]

I have to disagree with Cym Ladye's assesment on a couple points. No criticism of her, just pointing out the error of this particular piece of 'conventional wisdom'.

Something that happens to just one flower of a mature plant, several years after the plant was mericloned, has nothing to do with mutation or with deleterious effects of mericloning. By definition, a mutation is a genetic change and there is no evidence this is true in this case. Even if it is a genetic change, there is plenty of evidence that it did not happen in the mericloning process since it is not a recurring problem in all or most flowers on this plant.

This also is not technically a peloric flower. Pelory is when a normally bilaterally symmetrical flower becomes more radially symmetrical - not the case here. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with extra lips.

The developmental process of an orchid flower is more complex than many other flowers - the differentiation of the lip, the fusion of the reproductive organs into the column - it is very modified from the basic floral plan of a lily, for instance. Any complex process gets messed up sometimes. There may be a reason - temperature, chemical or virus at a sensitive stage of development - or there may be no reason at all other than random error in a complex process. Chaos happens.

Malformed flowers happen in all species and hybrids - seed grown or mericloned. They may be more common in some hybrids due to complex genetics interacting with an already complex process. There can even be cases where mutations show up in mericloned plants, though rarely with any evidence it is 'caused by' mericloning.

This one looks like a case of random error. There is just no evidence it is a mutation, and no evidence it was caused by the mericloning process.

[Rowangreen]

Interesting. One of the phals I have produced some doubled flowers: the flowers that were on it when I got it were normal, but some later buds were affected. Each produced two normal looking flowers crammed together on one stalk. The stalk even looked like two stalks stuck together. I always assumed it was the stress of going from greenhouse to seller to Columbia Road market in the cold, to my place. I'm waiting to see if it does it again when it next blooms. It's had the nubs of possible new side spikes on the old spike for ages, hopefully the colder weather here will bring them out soon!

[rochelle@58]

Paphmadman - Thanks for the info. Our chids are truly wondrous and mysterious aren't they?
Rowangreen - Thank you too. It helps to know it has happened before me and will again Good luck with your chids.
Barb H.

[Cym Ladye]

Paphmadman,

I essentially agree with your comments. I was trying to simplify my answer to the problem. None the less, if the genetics are there for mutation, I still feel the mericloning process can intensify mutations/crippling. Yes, I have seen crippling in Cymbidiums, my primary genus, but most of it occurs in mericloned plants. However, I can name one parent, currently being used fairly extensively, that loves to throw deformed flowers, primarily in the lip and column. Definitely genetic and definitely NOT peloric.

On another point, the true definition of "peloric" has morphed/grayed in many areas and come to mean any distortion of the flower, not necessarily symetrical. This technically should be termed "crippling" but if some find the flower attractive they do not want their plant so termed.

CL

[PaphMadMan]

Originally Posted by Cym Ladye

Paphmadman,

I essentially agree with your comments. I was trying to simplify my answer to the problem. None the less, if the genetics are there for mutation, I still feel the mericloning process can intensify mutations/crippling. Yes, I have seen crippling in Cymbidiums, my primary genus, but most of it occurs in mericloned plants. However, I can name one parent, currently being used fairly extensively, that loves to throw deformed flowers, primarily in the lip and column. Definitely genetic and definitely NOT peloric.

On another point, the true definition of "peloric" has morphed/grayed in many areas and come to mean any distortion of the flower, not necessarily symetrical. This technically should be termed "crippling" but if some find the flower attractive they do not want their plant so termed.

CL

Sorry, but the definition of peloric has not changed, only the widespread misuse of it for exactly the non-peloric crippling you noted. It has always had a very specific meaning in describing floral anatomy - which I noted - and you are not likely to find a different meaning in any reputable dictionary or encyclopedia. Just because many people use the term incorrectly doesn't change the meaning.