Hi list,
I am new to orchids, and have a few questions which I hope some of the
experts on this list might be able to help me with. I recently bought a
Dtps. Tinny Beauty, and am trying to get it's genealogy. One of it's
earliest ancestors was Phal. P.A. Benson = unknown x Phal. amabilis.
This information was from the RHS (royal horitcultural society) website.
Would anyone out there happen to known what this unknown parent is, or
perhaps give me some resources where I might find this info? The other
question I had also arose while browing the RHS site. They say that
amabilis is synonymous with aphrodite!

http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summ...s=Phalaenopsis


But I thought Phal. Bataan was amabilis X aphrodite, and it is not
considered a self cross certainly. What's going on here? Can someone
please clarity the taxinomic status of these two plants for me?

Thanks very much for any assistance rendered.

Cheers,
Xi Wang

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:06:09 -0500, Xi Wang
wrote:

Hi list,
I am new to orchids, and have a few questions which I hope some of the
experts on this list might be able to help me with. I recently bought a
Dtps. Tinny Beauty, and am trying to get it's genealogy. One of it's
earliest ancestors was Phal. P.A. Benson = unknown x Phal. amabilis.
This information was from the RHS (royal horitcultural society) website.
Would anyone out there happen to known what this unknown parent is, or
perhaps give me some resources where I might find this info? The other
question I had also arose while browing the RHS site. They say that
amabilis is synonymous with aphrodite!

When you go back in most breeding lines you come to a point where
people did not keep accurate records. There are several reasons.
Secrecy and competitiveness was a big part of it at one time. As
a successful breeder of new colors or lines, I could only protect
my "knowledge" if I did not report the correct parents or
reported unknown. As long as this was accepted it flourished.
IT was considered protected business property. After all at that
time most really successful crosses were more guess than science.
It is still a problem today in some genus. Because some
countries still practice such hybridizing. IT makes it difficult
for those of us who do appreciate the breeding history and wish
to show our plants.

Prior to that just the grow to bloom time added to the mix.
Way back before flasks and knowledgeable seedling developments,
plants were grown by throwing the seed on the roots of the mother
plant. The idea was that the plants needed some mysterious
something from Mom that could only be provided in that pot. This
created a shortage of viable seedlings in a considerable time
frame. It was common of figure 7-10 years from bloom to bloom.
With that type of time shift, often the history of a particular
plant was fuzzy.

SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

The RHS is the only place where orchid genealogy is kept. There are very
few 'unknown' parents but they do exist in this grex name database. The RHS
actually still accepts grexes for registration where one parent is unknown.
It happens that just a few months ago I saw a new one accepted.

It is very unlikely that you will ever find the 'unknown' parent if the RHS
says it is officially 'unknown'.

At many points in the last 200 hundred or so years the various species that
make up the group of white species Phals we know today were shifted in and
out of various species groupings by one taxonomic authority or another.
Orchid plants rarely spend more than one or two human taxonomic careers in
the same species. The RHS accepts these names 'of the day' as valid for
registration during these times, but taxonomists change their collective
mind frequently and species affiliations are always in flux. Even today it
is going on. However, the RHS rarely (in fact almost never) goes back and
adjusts grexes to fit current taxonomic realities and so there are lots of
these anomalous and confusing synonyms to be found if you look for them in
the database. Lots and Lots. Basically a large white Phal, no matter what
it's registered grex lineage says, is descended from the line breeding of a
single to few species which at one time or another were all called amablis
by somebody. Species affiliations may change again so don't get too used to
them the way they are. (This is a simplification, but only a little)

You will have to get used to confusion if you plan to make it a habit of
tracing grex names back to their species. The deeper you look into orchid
grex names the more of a mess you will find. When the laughter at this
crazy system coming from the reasoning part of your brain gets sufficiently
loud you will realize you are one of us. And when you really want a good
break from reality, ask yourself what a 'species' is and who decides.


"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news
Hi list,
I am new to orchids, and have a few questions which I hope some of the
experts on this list might be able to help me with. I recently bought a
Dtps. Tinny Beauty, and am trying to get it's genealogy. One of it's
earliest ancestors was Phal. P.A. Benson = unknown x Phal. amabilis.
This information was from the RHS (royal horitcultural society) website.
Would anyone out there happen to known what this unknown parent is, or
perhaps give me some resources where I might find this info? The other
question I had also arose while browing the RHS site. They say that
amabilis is synonymous with aphrodite!


http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summ...s=Phalaenopsis


But I thought Phal. Bataan was amabilis X aphrodite, and it is not
considered a self cross certainly. What's going on here? Can someone
please clarity the taxinomic status of these two plants for me?

Thanks very much for any assistance rendered.

Cheers,
Xi Wang

So, then, what is the status of Phal Bataan?

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
The RHS is the only place where orchid genealogy is kept. There are very
few 'unknown' parents but they do exist in this grex name database. The
RHS
actually still accepts grexes for registration where one parent is
unknown.
It happens that just a few months ago I saw a new one accepted.

It is very unlikely that you will ever find the 'unknown' parent if the
RHS
says it is officially 'unknown'.

At many points in the last 200 hundred or so years the various species
that
make up the group of white species Phals we know today were shifted in and
out of various species groupings by one taxonomic authority or another.
Orchid plants rarely spend more than one or two human taxonomic careers in
the same species. The RHS accepts these names 'of the day' as valid for
registration during these times, but taxonomists change their collective
mind frequently and species affiliations are always in flux. Even today
it
is going on. However, the RHS rarely (in fact almost never) goes back and
adjusts grexes to fit current taxonomic realities and so there are lots of
these anomalous and confusing synonyms to be found if you look for them
in
the database. Lots and Lots. Basically a large white Phal, no matter
what
it's registered grex lineage says, is descended from the line breeding of
a
single to few species which at one time or another were all called amablis
by somebody. Species affiliations may change again so don't get too used
to
them the way they are. (This is a simplification, but only a little)

You will have to get used to confusion if you plan to make it a habit of
tracing grex names back to their species. The deeper you look into orchid
grex names the more of a mess you will find. When the laughter at this
crazy system coming from the reasoning part of your brain gets
sufficiently
loud you will realize you are one of us. And when you really want a good
break from reality, ask yourself what a 'species' is and who decides.


"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news
Hi list,
I am new to orchids, and have a few questions which I hope some of the
experts on this list might be able to help me with. I recently bought a
Dtps. Tinny Beauty, and am trying to get it's genealogy. One of it's
earliest ancestors was Phal. P.A. Benson = unknown x Phal. amabilis.
This information was from the RHS (royal horitcultural society) website.
Would anyone out there happen to known what this unknown parent is, or
perhaps give me some resources where I might find this info? The other
question I had also arose while browing the RHS site. They say that
amabilis is synonymous with aphrodite!



http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summ...&Genus=Phalaen
opsis


But I thought Phal. Bataan was amabilis X aphrodite, and it is not
considered a self cross certainly. What's going on here? Can someone
please clarity the taxinomic status of these two plants for me?

Thanks very much for any assistance rendered.

Cheers,
Xi Wang

Al wrote:'.

At many points in the last 200 hundred or so years the various species that
make up the group of white species Phals we know today were shifted in and
out of various species groupings by one taxonomic authority or another.
Orchid plants rarely spend more than one or two human taxonomic careers in
the same species. The RHS accepts these names 'of the day' as valid for
registration during these times, but taxonomists change their collective
mind frequently and species affiliations are always in flux. Even today it
is going on. However, the RHS rarely (in fact almost never) goes back and
adjusts grexes to fit current taxonomic realities and so there are lots of
these anomalous and confusing synonyms to be found if you look for them in
the database. Lots and Lots. Basically a large white Phal, no matter what
it's registered grex lineage says, is descended from the line breeding of a
single to few species which at one time or another were all called amablis
by somebody. Species affiliations may change again so don't get too used to
them the way they are. (This is a simplification, but only a little)



Excellent synopsis, Al... And it isn't just phals. One of my
hybridizing goals was (once) to recreate some of the classic complex
paph studs starting with modern, 'improved', species. It doesn't take
too long to figure out that all of those complex paphs are descended
from a handful of parents, all of which seem to be of unknown breeding.
It is amazing, actually. Doesn't stop there...

And I would agree with Sue that it is partically obscurity for
protection of intellectual property. Or at least it was. But it is
also obscurity through lack of a consistent naming scheme. Remember
that in the very early days there wasn't really a central authority for
orchid registration. A lot of hybrids were published as new species in
the publications of the day (to them, they were new species, the concept
itself wasn't quite the same). Actually a lot of what we call 'clones'
or 'cultivars' were published as species, too. A lot of crosses were
probably made several times, and given different names each time. And
sometimes, I wager, the hybridizer didn't keep any notes. Why bother,
it didn't seem important back then. We think differently now, and as
orchid buyers we tend to shy away from plants of unknown provenance, so
the breeders make a point to keep track now. I bet there are still a
few that make up a parent or two, just to make us happy.


Rob


--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

On the RHS website there are two email addresses to put you in touch with
Julian Shaw, the current orchid registrar for the RHS. He can probably
provide the most definitive answers to these questions.

I suspect Phal Battan, registered in 1943, will stay Phal Battan no matter
what happens with the two species that make up this primary hybrid now or in
the future. The RHS rarely (almost never) makes changes to accommodate the
taxonomist's current groupings. The laughter starts when you begin to see
all the discrepancies this creates. All the Doritis backed hybrids are
staying the same and officially there are no longer any Doritis species at
all.

Battan is not the only one.... There are 11329 grexes that have
rimestadiana in their background. This is amablis now too. There are even
more grexes that use sanderiana, which at one time might be found labeled as
Phal amablis, var. aphrodite subvar. sanderiana even though now it is just
plain old sanderiana. BTW, Christenson, currently, considers aphrodite to
be a separate species from amabilis.

There where the taxonomic system and the RHS grex naming system and the
'proprietary' concerns of hybridizers collide we shall find the missing 70%
of matter and energy that they say must be present to hold the universe
together. I think the RHS registrar is wise not to mess around with this
physics just for the sake of making sense. I joke, but I am aware of how
mixed up and aggravating these systems are. It is like dealing with zoning
laws.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
news:SmUfc.4269$0b4.12689@attbi_s51...
So, then, what is the status of Phal Bataan?

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
The RHS is the only place where orchid genealogy is kept. There are
very
few 'unknown' parents but they do exist in this grex name database. The
RHS
actually still accepts grexes for registration where one parent is
unknown.
It happens that just a few months ago I saw a new one accepted.

It is very unlikely that you will ever find the 'unknown' parent if the
RHS
says it is officially 'unknown'.

At many points in the last 200 hundred or so years the various species
that
make up the group of white species Phals we know today were shifted in
and
out of various species groupings by one taxonomic authority or another.
Orchid plants rarely spend more than one or two human taxonomic careers
in
the same species. The RHS accepts these names 'of the day' as valid for
registration during these times, but taxonomists change their collective
mind frequently and species affiliations are always in flux. Even today
it
is going on. However, the RHS rarely (in fact almost never) goes back
and
adjusts grexes to fit current taxonomic realities and so there are lots
of
these anomalous and confusing synonyms to be found if you look for them
in
the database. Lots and Lots. Basically a large white Phal, no matter
what
it's registered grex lineage says, is descended from the line breeding
of
a
single to few species which at one time or another were all called
amablis
by somebody. Species affiliations may change again so don't get too
used
to
them the way they are. (This is a simplification, but only a little)

You will have to get used to confusion if you plan to make it a habit of
tracing grex names back to their species. The deeper you look into
orchid
grex names the more of a mess you will find. When the laughter at this
crazy system coming from the reasoning part of your brain gets
sufficiently
loud you will realize you are one of us. And when you really want a
good
break from reality, ask yourself what a 'species' is and who decides.


"Xi Wang" wrote in message
news
Hi list,
I am new to orchids, and have a few questions which I hope some of the
experts on this list might be able to help me with. I recently bought
a
Dtps. Tinny Beauty, and am trying to get it's genealogy. One of it's
earliest ancestors was Phal. P.A. Benson = unknown x Phal. amabilis.
This information was from the RHS (royal horitcultural society)
website.
Would anyone out there happen to known what this unknown parent is,
or
perhaps give me some resources where I might find this info? The
other
question I had also arose while browing the RHS site. They say that
amabilis is synonymous with aphrodite!




http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/summ...&Genus=Phalaen
opsis


But I thought Phal. Bataan was amabilis X aphrodite, and it is not
considered a self cross certainly. What's going on here? Can someone
please clarity the taxinomic status of these two plants for me?

Thanks very much for any assistance rendered.

Cheers,
Xi Wang

For anybody who pays attention to me, I just wanted to make one
clarification:

The name 'tree' that you can construct by following the grex names backward
to the species level is *not* a genealogy. You can not use it to track the
occurrence of specific traits across generations because it refers to groups
of plants and not individuals. This confuses many people and is a big
conceptual road block that many people slam into and never get passed.

I am kind of hard pressed to say what precisely the RHS grex name data can
really be used for. Maybe I have been out in the sun shoveling gravel too
long... It gives an overview of a hybrid's probable genetic background...

"Al" wrote in message
...
The RHS is the only place where orchid genealogy is kept.

Al wrote:

For anybody who pays attention to me, I just wanted to make one
clarification:

The name 'tree' that you can construct by following the grex names backward
to the species level is *not* a genealogy. You can not use it to track the
occurrence of specific traits across generations because it refers to groups
of plants and not individuals. This confuses many people and is a big
conceptual road block that many people slam into and never get passed.

I am kind of hard pressed to say what precisely the RHS grex name data can
really be used for. Maybe I have been out in the sun shoveling gravel too
long... It gives an overview of a hybrid's probable genetic background...




It's not bad for primary hybrids. And it is marginally useful for
tracking breeding trends. But it would be an actual tool if they made a
note of which clones were used for which hybrids. There is a whole lot
of secret knowledge tucked up into breeders heads and their stud books.
I have a few people in particular I wouldn't mind getting in the room
with the alien mind recording machine... Oh, I guess I wasn't supposed
to tell anybody I have one, I guess I'd better go home and sit in the
sun now....


Rob


--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Unless they drastically changed things a note about which 'clone' was used
to make the grex would only apply to the first mating of record that was
used to register the grex. Imagine if one had to register every mating, but
then the data *would* be useful and *would* be a genealogy. It would
probably still be as (insert FCC prohibited explicative) up as it is now.

Sit in the sun long enough and it all will start to make sense.

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

But it would be an actual tool if they made a
note of which clones were used for which hybrids. There is a whole lot
of secret knowledge tucked up into breeders heads and their stud books.

Rob


--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

For anybody who pays attention to me, I just wanted to make one
clarification:

The name 'tree' that you can construct by following the grex names
backward
to the species level is *not* a genealogy. You can not use it to track
the
occurrence of specific traits across generations because it refers to
groups
of plants and not individuals. This confuses many people and is a big
conceptual road block that many people slam into and never get passed.

I am kind of hard pressed to say what precisely the RHS grex name data
can
really be used for. Maybe I have been out in the sun shoveling gravel
too
long... It gives an overview of a hybrid's probable genetic
background...




It's not bad for primary hybrids. And it is marginally useful for
tracking breeding trends. But it would be an actual tool if they made a
note of which clones were used for which hybrids. There is a whole lot
of secret knowledge tucked up into breeders heads and their stud books.
I have a few people in particular I wouldn't mind getting in the room
with the alien mind recording machine... Oh, I guess I wasn't supposed
to tell anybody I have one, I guess I'd better go home and sit in the
sun now....


Rob
\

I believe that's Shaw's intention in allowing clonal names and varieties to
pass into registration. And part of the rationale behind allowing the
clonal to stand for the common name, as with other garden plants. (I think
the AOS published that small part of the list of orchid hybrids in this
month's mag)

Nevertheless, you should look at Shaw's latest comments to see about Paph
callosum 'Jac' (and 2 others) where it concerns the 'hybrid' Azores Eagle.
I know the fellow who made Azores Eagle and he's sorta ticked at himself for
not registering it after himself - that way he could have been famous, *G

Supposedly the vini trait in 'Jac' doesn't appear in teh 1st generation, it
shows up in the 2nd. How's that for genetics? I *think* there's another
well know vini parent from Stewart's that was more reliable in passing
vinicolor along, but I may be misremembering.

As to stud books, Hetherington was trying to get just about every breeder he
knows to donate their records to the Huntington Library. Meeting with some
resistance, I believe. I *think* becasue these things are salable when/if
the breeders retire and/or sell their businesses.

K Barrett