Jan superbly covered this topic, and thanks for clarifying the history of D. indica.
<<Do you know why? It was Barry Meyers-Rice that proved that these now separate species cannot be hybridized. Since a species is a breeding pool and the different forms of Byblis cannot interbreed, they must then be iron clad separate species. This case of Byblis has more of a mathematical exactness of true science. >>
<Not really..........The case of _D. tokaiensis_ is exactly as obvious and simple genetically and taxonomically, and still some people would rather treat it as an independent species just because it is *not* sterile.>
How about the offsprings? To be recognized as its own species, I thought offsprings should not segregate as you often see those of primary hybrids. I was thinking the case of D. anglica, and that may be relevant as well, right?
<The important point (that has obviously still not penetrated public awareness sufficiently) is that sterility, fertility, and breedingbehaviour *alone* are *not* sufficient (although these data are doubtlessly useful) for species delimitation in many cases, especially not in the genus _Drosera_ (or _Nepenthes_ or _Sarracenia_).>
I agree. I think sterility among hybrids simply shows genetic dustance(s) between two parental species.
<Splitting and lumping will continue irrespective of the methods used.>
Speaking of sterility (or fertility) among primary hybrids, many of (not all, though) orchid primary hybrids are perfectly fertile. Intergenerics (hybrids between different genera) are hardly new. You can buy hybrids of Brassolaeliocattleya (Brassavola x Laelia x Cattleya), Ascocenda (Ascocentrum x Vanda) and Vulystekeara (Miltonia x Cochlioda x Odontoglossum) even at local Lowes (or Home Depot). If I remember correctly, there is a man-made genus that consists of species from nine genera. Of course, this depends on species, genera, subtribes, and tribes that orchids belong to. The concept of species that is readily applied to a group of family/genus, etc may not be applicable to another.
<Only the inclusivity of taxonomic ranks is defined (a species cannot contain two different genera but a genus can contain two different species),>Does this apply to fungal species as well? For example, Giberella fujikuroi is a teleomorph of Fusarium moniliforme (anamorph). I remember some macrocyclic rust fugi belonging to three genus depending on the number of life cycles. Since this is fungal taxonomy, the situation may be different.
I did agree with Jan's logic (this does not necessarily mean I "swallowed" it w/o thinking, though). I think what you need to do is, presenting data/evidence, etc. other than to come up with your own belief, or labeling others who do not agree with you "ignorant." I think it is very "non-scientific," and "ignorant" itself.
<Firstly, you must realize that allopolyploids are by convention accepted as species, as in the case with D. anglica.>
Always?
<Secondly, another reason for distinction is that D. tokaiensis is a hexaploid and so cannot interbreed with tetraploid D. spatulata.>
As we often say, "proving" (many scientists argue that they really don't "prove" anything) A is NOT B is much harder than A is B. In science, we all deal with probability, and whatever the alpha level is, we reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it. I beleive you have experience in some breeding, but what if this happens?
<The offspring would be sterile pentaploids. It's simple, 3 + 2 = 5. Odd ploidys are always sterile. This is another example of the mathematical exactness I like, and you must learn.>
If you are not interested in this topic, please skip. This will be long.
With saying that, I did a lit. search on this using four databases (Agricola, AGRIS, BIOSIS, and CAB) since I was not quite satisfied with the example I used. I was rather surprised to find many articles on this topic. I selected some (some were redundant--many on wheat, cotton, etc), and copied and pasted parts of abstracts. This does NOT mean ALL pentaploids are fertile., but definately some are. After all, unreduced gametes are nothing new.
I must confess that I did not find the example I used, but I will try to do so. The whole list of articles on this topic is available upon request (huge, but not complete).
Fruit crops:
Vaccinium (blueberry): "Pentaploids resulting from crossing cultivars of the tetraploid species V. australe with the hexaploid V. ashei 'Tifblue' and 'Woodard' were tested for fertility.....the progenies of 4x X 5x crosses would produce mainly tetraploids" (Jelenkovic et al., 1973).
Plums: "The fertile seedlings mainly had 2n = 48, though some were found in the tetraploid and pentaploid groups" (Turovtseva, 1975).
Actinidia (kiwifruit): "The pentaploid hybrid was intermediate between its parents for most traits, but less vigorous than either. It had poor male but reasonable female fertility" (Pringle, 1986).
Coffea: "The two pentaploids had a pollen fertility of 78 and 80% and a good fruit set" (Lanaud and Zickler, 1980).
Vegetables (in a broad sense):
Potato: "These pentaploid hybrids were vigorous and had uniformly sterile pollen. They were female fertile and were crossed with tetraploid cultivars..." (Adiwilaga and Brown, 1991).
Brassica napus x Orychophragmus violaceus: "A pentaploid hybrid plant (2n = 50, AACCO) between Brassica napus (AACC) and Orychophragmus violaceus (OO) showed matroclinous morphology and some patroclinous characters....The 50 chromosomes were mainly paired as 25 bivalents and segregated as 25: 25 or 22:28; many other segregations were observed in some cells" (Wu et al., 1997).
Brassica: "The majority of the hybrid plants (AABCC) were self fertile with brown seeds" (Jingling et al., 1998).
Beta (sugar beet): "It has been found that pentaploid level, characterized by high recombination possibilities, could be used in developing monogerm tetraploid forms with well regulated meiosis, high pollen fertility and high seed germination percentage" (Zakhariev, 1989).
Agronomic (grain, etc):
Avena (oat): "The pentaploid self-sterile hybrids obtained were backcrossed to A. sativa" (Premachandran et al., 1988).
Triticum (wheat): "The pentaploid with A. squarrosa cytoplasm did not transmit 14-chromosome male gametes" (Tsuji and Maan, 1981).
Gossypium (cotton): "Selfing a pentaploid from G. hirsutum x G. stocksii or back crossing it to G. hirsutum resulted in plants with chromosome numbers ranging from...." (Schwendiman, 1978).
Others:
Alopecurus (grass) :"one pentaploid plant, probably arising through a fusion of an unreduced F1 gamete and a normal pratensis gamete, was highly fertile" (Niseen, 1949).
Agropyron repens X Agropyron spicatum (quackgrass) : "Pentaploid hybrids (2n = 35) of A. repens (2n = 42) x A. spicatum (2n = 28) were intercrossed, back crossed to both parent species...." (Dewey, 1976).
<You could not find an orchid harder to grow than the Ghost Orchid.>
How about some Saprophytic ones ? Many orchid growers agree Telipogon may be the most difficult one. Acacalis cyanea was considered to be one of the most difficult ones. I hear plants of this orchid, grown from seeds are easier to grow (but I have killed a few).
<Is it possible that the commercially available fungi might eat any beneficial forms already present in established pots of plants or gardens?>
This "may" be possible. but you can isolate Trichoderma from many types of soil, probably from your garden as well. I am not sure which species a particular product contains, but T. viridis is not some rare fungal species you can only find in a special place such as cloud forests in western side of Andean mountain, etc (I just made this up). But particular strain probably won't be found there.
< http://www.rambridge.com/products/garden/disease/disease2.html>
Trichoderma is a fungal genus, and this product contains bacteria. If it is indeed Trichoderma, , it is a good sign you should not buy this.....
<If I understand your last post correctly, there is one point I must disagree with. According to studies done at Cornell University, Trichoderma spp. do indeed target and destroy offending fungi through a process called mycoparasitism.>
<You are absolutely right, Trichoderma may target and destroy OFFENDING fungi. As this article states, "This process (mycoparastitism) limits growth and activity of plant pathogenic fungi". The Trichoderma does not consume or 'eat' the pathogenic fungi but it may produce substances that kill or break down the apposing pathogen.>
From the webpage:
Among their other activities, they grow tropically toward hyphae of other fungi, coil about them in a lectin-mediated reaction, and degrade cell walls of the target fungi.
This is a description of a degrative/digestive process. It can be interpreted as "eating" if you feel like. Trichoderma is a hyperparasite, meaning "a parasite of a parasite." What a parasite does? Parasitize. I read their mode of action may be partly due to competition, though.
<Along the lines of Trichoderma, I've found a place that sells this: Gliocladium virens already exists naturally in your soil and>
Gliocladium virens = Trichoderma vires. Check these pages:
http://www.dsmz.de/species/sp300607.htm
http://www.life.umd.edu/CBMG/faculty/straney.html
<You could not find an orchid harder to grow than the Ghost Orchid.>
>How about some Saprophytic ones ? Many orchid growers agree Telipogon may be the most difficult one. Acacalis cyanea was considered to be one of the most difficult ones. I hear plants of this orchid, grown from seeds are easier to grow (but I have killed a few).
> ><Is it possible that the commercially available fungi might eat any beneficial forms already present in established pots of plants or gardens?>
>This "may" be possible. but you can isolate Trichoderma from many types of soil, probably from your garden as well. I am not sure which species a particular product contains, but T. viridis is not some rare fungal species you can only find in a special place such as cloud forests in western side of Andean mountain, etc (I just made this up). But particular strain probably won't be found there.
>< http:/ /www.rambridge.com/products/garden/disease/disease2.html>
>Trichoderma is a fungal genus, and this product contains bacteria. If it is indeed Trichoderma, , it is a good sign you should not buy this.....
><If I understand your last post correctly, there is one point I must disagree with. According to studies done at Cornell University, Trichoderma spp. do indeed target and destroy offending fungi through a process called mycoparasitism.>
><You are absolutely right, Trichoderma may target and destroy OFFENDING fungi. As this article states, "This process (mycoparastitism) limits growth and activity of plant pathogenic fungi". The Trichoderma does not consume or 'eat' the pathogenic fungi but it may produce substances that kill or break down the apposing pathogen.>
>From the webpage:
>Among their other activities, they grow tropically toward hyphae of other fungi, coil about them in a lectin-mediated reaction, and degrade cell walls of the target fungi.
>This is a description of a degrative/digestive process. It can be interpreted as "eating" if you feel like. Trichoderma is a hyperparasite, meaning "a parasite of a parasite." What a parasite does? Parasitize. I read their mode of action may be partly due to competition, though.
><Along the lines of Trichoderma, I've found a place that sells this: Gliocladium virens already exists naturally in your soil and>
>Gliocladium virens = Trichoderma vires. Check these pages:
>http://www.dsmz.de/species/sp 300607.htm
>http://www.life.umd .edu/CBMG/faculty/straney.html
><The great strength of the grex system used in orchids is that plants of different ancestry can be distinguished, even if they are anatomically identical. Clonal names can then be used to identify exceptional clones of a particular grex.>
I don't quite follow the logics here. There is so much confusion on Sander's List, and in some respects, it is quite outdated as well. For example, RHS does not recognize Encyclia as its own genus, and still include all Encyclia species in Epidendrum. It is also known Phalaenopsis does not (usually) breed with Paraphalaenopsis, but for the registration purposes, hybrids of Paraphalaenopsis are treated as Phalaenopsis hybrids. This is partly due to frequent change in orchid names. And yes, in the beginning of the Sander's List, cultivar names were also recorded.
There was an artcle by Ned Nash some time ago ('94) on pink Cattleya breeding at Stewart. As is the case with his writing, he basically boasted about breeding at Stewart. One thing that really surprised me was, he attributed success of their breeding program to this particular hybrid that "they" misregistered. Mistakes may be inevitable in any system.
<How has cultivar registration worked for other horticultural areas? Hypothetical worst-case scenarios aside, what have the actual results been for orchids or roses (or Saintpaulia for that matter)?>
Grex names of orchids are registered through RHS (Royal Horticulture Society), and the names appear in Sander's List. Every three year or so an addendum is published. To register a grex, you need to be the person who made the cross or have permission from the breeder. For a friend I know, I contacted The Orchid Zone a couple years ago to do this. The registration fee is not all that expensive. I think it was around $12.
A little explanation on "grex." A grex (means a "herd") is a new combination of between species, hybrids, or betwen a species and a hybrid. For example, Paph. Maudiae is Paph. callosum x Paph. lawrenceanum. If you make this particular cross, it will be always Paph. Maudiae since it has been registered as such. The Sander's list does not recognize reciprocal crosses, or consider ploidy of parents. Genetically speaking, if you cross Paph. lawrenceanum (4 n) x Paph. callosum (2 n), it is pretty much identical to Paph. Alma Gevaert (Paph. lawrenceanum x Paph. Maudiae), but this hybrid is still considered as Paph. Maudiae. A similar thing happened with Lc. Mini Purple (C. walkeriana x L. pumila) recently.
I think cultivar name is pretty much up to the "original" owner of the particular clone. If a clone is given an award from AOS (American Orchid Society), the clonal name becomes "official." You are supposed to honor the "original" clonal name, but it is not mandantry. As you can guess, there have been (many?) incidents. I know a few incidents, but I am not supposed to tell here.
Using the example of Paph. Maudiae, there are many clones of this particular grex. Some of the famous ones are: 'Magnificum' FCC/RHS (album), 'Silvarado' (album), 'Los Osos' AM/AOS(coloratum), Ebony Queen FCC/AOS (vini (wine) color), 'Renaissance' (vi ni), etc. Needless to say, hybrids between clones of the same grex belongs to the same grex.
Once your plant receives (quality awards are given to plants in AOS system), you need to pay the fee. The amount of fee varies (the higher the award, the more expensive the fee is). And if you fail to do this within a given time period, the award becomes invalid. And needless to say, there are some orchids that have some award on their label, but this does not appear on the index.
During this process, mistakes do happen. For example, when my Paph. Jeweled Tapestry was given an award (HCC), I chose the name 'Ispaphan.' I forgot how they misspelled, but I sent a check along with my letter, and subsequently they fixed it.
<On my visit to the Florida Panhandle last year I witnessed what appeared to be introgression that had been going on for a very long time. >
This does not tell me much. I suggested that you present some data, evidence, etc in my previous message, and Jan agreed. Should I assume you went there to conduct a survey, and reporting the results here? Many researchers do field work, and frankly, I am not sure if one visit (or a couple) would solve the matter. You should avoid using, "seem" and "appear" in scientific writing (my own advisor told me so). This may have not been such a case, though, and sometimes, it is very difficult to do so.
< The stand of one variant covered a large area. One place was the type location of a named variant. A give-away that the variant was of hybrid origin was in finding one plant with an unquestionable feature from another Sarracenia species, and this other species was also present there.>
Any subsequent testing to see if segragation occured or not? Molecular anaysis to show some evidence? Or even collecting values based on, height, color, number of leaves, etc? And if you did how many? How did you analyze? Those are kind of questions that will be asked in peer edited scientific journals.
<I have photos.>
Any quantifiable data?
< I am convinced that introgression is going on with S. flava, and for the above reasons, I'm sure phils work is provable. It's fascinating how these hybrids can stabilize into such successful and distinct variant patterns.>
I have never said I don't think introgression occured or played a role. It is possible. But I am not "convinced." I think that's where Michale stands. You can come up as many hypotheses as you please. But you never did a hypothesis testing. Your information may be valuable, but not scientific.
Ok, here's an example. Followers of some religious cult (their name shall remain unwritten--it is copyrighted anyway) believe that the origin of human beings can be traced back to aliens (or their "thetans") massacared by the evil intergalactic lord (Xenu) with hydrogen bomb(s) on Hawiian islands 76 million ago. Did this really happen? Did they do a hypothesis testing? I hope they did . I hear what they teach have some elements of science. But if you assemble "facts" in wrong ways, it may not make sense, or you can come up with soemthing really bizzar. I think that's the danger of knowing half-baked scientific knowledge.
For on my part, I am still learning, and have made mistakes like Jan confessed. That's one thing I find rather unnerving about Voodoo scientists. They are not responsible for their claim. They think they don't have to go through the process we do. Of course you can say whatever you want. Your right of freedom of speech should be fully exercised. But if you deal with scientific realm, you cannot get away with this.
Nick,
<That is irrelevant to my argument.>
Thanks for clarification, but it was rather unclear to me. I used that example to show how Sander's List is messed up. It may not have been as relevant as I thought, but it was still relevant on the regard that orchid registration system is not that perfect. Ask orchid breeders, and you may be surprised how some of them are frustrated about the system. Is RHS trying to make an effort to improve it (a rhetrical question)?
< Regardless of whether a particular orchid hybrid is registered as Epidendrum Orchid Jungle or Encyclia Orchid Jungle, you still (theoretically) know that all E. Orchid Jungle plants have the same parentage, and furthermore, that all E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are exactly the same clone.>
Small nitpicking: the abbreviation for Encyclia is, Enc., not E. This is a strictly horticultural invention, though. Anyway, how about somaclonal variation? Why do we see so many sports of Blc. Mem. Helen Brown 'Sweet Afton' AM/AOS? Do you know how some clones of Phal. Golden Peoker that are parents of "black" Phalaenopsis showed up through "cloned" populations of 'Brother'?
And if I use the example of vini color Paphs you mentioned, can you be certain all vini color Paph. Maudiae are really Paph. Maudiae, but not a hybrid of Paph. callosum 'Jac,' that may or may not be Paph. callosum? Depending on year, Cattleya harrisoniae was treated as a variety of C. loddigesii by Sander's List. Are we sure all "putative" hybrids of C. lodigesii are in fact hybrids of C. loddigesii? There are varieties of Paph. philippinense most notably, roebelinii. Are we all sure Paph. St. Swithin out there were made with philippinense, not roebelinii?
How about Enc. Orchid Jungle itself? I am not sure if Enc. parviflora is recognized by RHS, but just assume it has not been. Since this is a "variety" of Enc. alata, Enc. parviflora x Enc. phoenicea may be treated as Enc. Orchid Jungle. I often hear when somebody made a remake of old cross, it really did not turn out to look like "the first" batch (e.g., Paph. Peachy). I heard something similar about one of Phrag. bessae hybrid, too.
Or how about dubious clones of a species? There have been some nasty rumor regarding Cattleya walkeriana 'Pendentive.' AM/AOS. Are we that sure if it is really a "pure" species, not a hybrid? And you know it has been extensively used. There is even one on your web page!
Sander's List stopped listing varieties and cultivar names for registration for some time, so, in some case, you aren't so sure what you have. One more example you may be aware is, Ondontglossum hybrids registered in the beginning of breeding. Some times they didn't even list parentage, and it was accepted at that time. And I can go on and on. It is a fair system, but I don't think as robust as you (want to) think.
<you can still be fairly confident that two divisions of E. Orchid Jungle 'Big Flower' are the same plant,>
It is just a matter of "confidence level," I guess. If I see the plant divided in front of me, yeah, but if it is from some notorious place like The Orchid XXXXX, nah.
<even though in the orchid system the clonal name 'Big Flower' is informal.>
Informal?
<If I understand the CP cultivar registry correctly, you have no way of knowing whether two plants of Sarracenia 'hypothetical cultivar' are actually the same clone, or even the same hybrid.>
That may be very well correct, I think. But there are ways to test to do this since you wrote there is "no way of knowing......." I am not one, but ask a plant genetist. Of course, it is very nice if we can prevent this from happening to begin with.
<the ambiguity is deliberately built into the system, and not just a result of human failings.>
But then again, there is an ample room for ambiguity in orchid registration system. It's not that stringent. Don't you remember the recent fiasco on Cattalasia Premire? It was a prt of human "failings," but it showed how fragile it can be.
John Green:
<Hideka Kobayashi: can you change your e-mail setting to "plain text" or something like that? We're getting a bunch of code and stuff with your messages that makes it hard to read. I'm sure what you're saying is useful, but usually I end up just skipping over most of it. :-( >
I think that's how Hotmail is set up (there may be options, though). I am not sure about "we," but I am aware of this. Go ahead and feel free to skip my message if you feel like. I scroll whenever I feel. However, I do read most of messages I am interested.
John Green:
><Hideka Kobayashi: can you change your e-mail setting to >"plain text" or something like that? We're getting a bunch of code >and stuff with your messages that makes it hard to read. I'm sure >what you're saying is useful, but usually I end up just skipping >over most of it. :-( >
>I think that's how Hotmail is set up (there may be >options, though). I am not sure about "we," but I am aware of >this. Go ahead and feel free to skip my message if you feel like. >I scroll whenever I feel. However, I do read most of messages >I am interested.