# 'clonal name'?



## Kevin (Jan 12, 2011)

So, this is more for orchids in general, rather than just slippers, but it applies also. There are a few things I think I know about the orchid world, but sometimes I hear something that makes me question whether I'm on track or not. I'm having a discussion with a guy on another forum who is trying to tell me that the word 'clone' only applies to a mericlone and not to any individual plant. I always thought that any individual orchid plant could be given a name in quotes that is called a 'clonal name'. He is calling that a varietal name. Is there a rule about what the word in quotes after a plant name is called? Are there any sites that can back that up? If so, do you have the links?

The plant in question is Den. Anucha Flare, and some of the plants are splash petalled, and some have come out peloric. I have since found out that there was only one single plant of this cross left after the cross was registered, so all remaining plants are mericlones of that original (it apparently had been mericloned). If this is so, shouldn't all these plants have a clonal name? And, a question about peloric: does this arise from 'messing up the genes' though excessive mericloning, or does it just happen randomly through breeding?

Thanks a bunch for your input.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 12, 2011)

Here are extracts of Handbook of judging and exibition AOS

clonal variety: A named individual which is always vegetatively propagated from a clone; a cultivar.

clone: A plant grown from a single seed and all subsequent vegetative divisions of it.

Cultivar name: A fancy (that is, non-Latin) name given to an orchid clone and set in single quotes when written or printed.

Grex: A flock or group, applied collectively to the progeny of a given cross.

Grex name: The fancy (that is, non-Latin) name given to a cross and to all progeny of that cross.

Variety: 1. A given kind; a plant that varies from the type in one or more important characters. (Also see botanical variety, clonal variety, horticultural variety and cultivar.) 2. Both as numbers of different genera and variety within one or a few genera. (For use in scoring Groups of Plants, Collection or Cut Flower Exhibits - paragraphs 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3.)

Mericlone: An individual plant produced through meristem tissue culture propagation and treated as a vegetative division of the clone from which it was produced.


----------



## Rick (Jan 12, 2011)

If you can tell from the above definitions, the term Variety is related to botany/taxonomic naming of a plant. It will not refer to an individual plant, but more generally to a local population of a given species of plant.

Clonal names are horticultural labels of individuals (and or genetically similar plants by vegetative division). In a way a mericlone is a form of vegetative division of an individual plant.

For an example:

Paph. philippinense var. roebelinii 'Time Twister'

The genus is Paphiopediulum
The species is philippinense
The local variety is roebelinii (a long petaled version of the species from the Island of Luzon)

'Time Twister' is the clonal name for an individual plant. Anyone can give a plant a clonal name, but if a plant is judged by a recognized body (like AOS) the plant must be given a clonal name to distinguish and label it separately from all others of that species and variety.


----------



## Rick (Jan 12, 2011)

Den. Anucha Flare

This plant is a hybrid of multiple species. (I don't know which ones without going back to a registry).

There will be no "varietal" names for this hybrid unless the particular species plants used in this cross were specified taxonomic varieties. And even then you won't see them listed until you go back into the registered parentage of a given "clone".

Crosses can be remade from the original species at any time, so you can end up with new "clones" of hybrids.

Also you can occasionally, during the mericloning process, end up with mutations or sports that will give you options to give a new clonal name to a registered mericlone hybrid.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

Thanks! That's what I thought. 

Erythrone: can 'clonal variety' simply be called a 'clone'? This might be where this guy is confused.

Rick: I have OrchidWiz, and it says Den. Anucha Flare is Ekapol x Suriyon Stripe. This guy I was talking to - all I know is he is in the U.S., has been growing orchids for over 20 years, and has been involved with hybridizing. Given that, why would he have never heard the term 'clone' used this way before? Something is off here.

One thing that is a bit confusing, though, is the word 'clone' itself. How can one single seedling be given a 'clonal' name? It is not a clone. Should the term be different in that case? When an orchid gets an award, it is given a clonal name when it is not a clone, simply an individual. I've never understood that wording.


----------



## John M (Jan 13, 2011)

*Kevin, you've got some excellent information already. But, even though I might be repeating some of it, I'll add in my 2 cents in bold here, to help give you the full picture. Your question is one that is never asked by people who get into orchids, burn hot for a couple years and then lose interest and give it all up. All of us who get past that "honeymoon" stage eventually ask the very questions that you've asked here.*



Kevin said:


> So, this is more for orchids in general, rather than just slippers, but it applies also. There are a few things I think I know about the orchid world, but sometimes I hear something that makes me question whether I'm on track or not. I'm having a discussion with a guy on another forum who is trying to tell me that the word 'clone' only applies to a mericlone and not to any individual plant. *The other guy is wrong. God only knows how he missed that. It is impossible to have a conversation with a knowledgeable grower without both of you using the word "clone" in reference to a particular, individual, genetically unique plant, including Paphs, which are never mericloned.*I always thought that any individual orchid plant could be given a name in quotes that is called a 'clonal name'. *Correct.*He is calling that a varietal name. *He is wrong. A varietal name is something like var. alba, or var. flamea, etc. A varietal name refers to a population of plants of the same species or hybrid with a unique difference (usually colour), from other plants of the same species or hybrid. That being said, in the first half (or so), of the last century, it was common to refer to what we now call a clonal name, a variety. They also sometimes used the true varietal name in place of the species name. For example: Cattleya labiata autumnalis var. 'ABC Orchids'; or, Cattleya autumnalis var. 'ABC Orchids'. Over time, as organized judging and granting of awards to plants became more important to horticulturists, so did the names of the plants winning those awards evolve to become more uniform and standardized. So, people began paying more attention to the proper Genus and Species names as well as correctly adding var. in front of the variety name and using only single quotes around the clonal name.....as well as calling it a clonal name to distinguish if from the true varietal name.*Is there a rule about what the word in quotes after a plant name is called? *Common usage today is "clonal name"....and a clonal name is always in single quotes.*Are there any sites that can back that up? If so, do you have the links?
> 
> The plant in question is Den. Anucha Flare, and some of the plants are splash petalled, and some have come out peloric. *Just to be picky here; most people incorrectly say that something is peloric, when in fact, it is semi-peloric. A peloric flower has 3 complete lips, not one lip and two petals trying to be a lip; but, not quite getting there.*I have since found out that there was only one single plant of this cross left after the cross was registered, so all remaining plants are mericlones of that original (it apparently had been mericloned). If this is so, shouldn't all these plants have a clonal name? *Based on the information you've just provided and assuming it is accurate, the answer is YES.*And, a question about peloric: does this arise from 'messing up the genes' though excessive mericloning, or does it just happen randomly through breeding? *Both.*
> 
> Thanks a bunch for your input.


----------



## John M (Jan 13, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Thanks! That's what I thought.
> 
> Erythrone: can 'clonal variety' simply be called a 'clone'? This might be where this guy is confused. *Okay; so, I'm not Erythrone; but, your answer is YES.*
> 
> ...


..


----------



## Rick (Jan 13, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Rick: I have OrchidWiz, and it says Den. Anucha Flare is Ekapol x Suriyon Stripe.




At least by normal taxo nomenclature, you still don't have the parents back to the original species (and or varieties). Species names will be in lower case.

Not a biggie as far as the main issues you are concerned with on this thread, but you have what looks like a complex hybrid in this example.

John I like your serial number analogy.


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2011)

Personally, I thing the synonymy of "clone" or "clonal name" and "cultivar" is a mistake - a blurring of the lines of definition.

How willing would any of us be to tolerate comparative discussions of the "slippers primulinum and besseae", without the proper genus attached?


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2011)

Ramble through History....

Back in the late 60's when tissue culture was becoming a way to propogate orchids commercially the process was called "mericloneing" and the resulting plant was called a "mericlone". 

Prior to tissue culture reproduction the only was to get a replicate orchid "cultivar" of a individual plant was by dividing the plant into multiple pieces. Each piece was called a "division".

For example if you flowered a seedling cattleya plant and it was awarded then you gave it a cultivar name. At it was properly called the 'xxxx' cultivar or a specific species or hybrid. When your plant got big enough you could divide it into 2 "divisions". Each division of the plant carried the 'xxxx' cultivar name. And forever all divisions of all divisions of the cultivar have the same 'xxxx' cultivar name. But after perhaps 10 years there may only have been a handful of the 'xxxx' cultivar in existence and each one may sell for a high price because of their scarcity.

Then alone comes the mericloning process and suddenly you can take the scarce 'xxxx' cultivar and with the mericlone process make 1000 new mericlone 'xxxx' cultivars. Suddenly the 'xxxx' cultivar is not scarce anymore and so the value per plant is much less.

So what does this have to do with the word "clone"? 
When tissue culture was new no one really knew for sure if the "cloned" plants were actually as true to type as a "division". The original 'xxxx' cultivar divisions had more value and appeal than the 'xxxx' mericlones.
People began to call plants made by mericloneing (tissue culture) "clones", short for mericlone.
A "division" of an awarded plant might cost $1000 and a "clone" of the same plant cost only $15.

The word "clone" was simply a descripter identifying the method of propagation used to generate the plant. 
you could have
Cattelya 'xxxx' - a division of the original plant
Cattelya 'xxxx' - a clone

Then after some time passed we accepted that clones were in fact exact copies of the original plant. So the word "clone" became a word to describe the plant as belonging to group of exact replicates of a cultivar.

A "clone" is a copy of the original but it should not be used to describe the original plant that was created by seed reproduction or mutation. The original plant is the "cultivar" all others are "clones" of the cultivar.

But now the words are evolving and anything original has less importance. Now all members of a cultivar are referred to as "clones".


----------



## monocotman (Jan 13, 2011)

*somaclonal variation*

hi there,

just to add a bit of info.
When some plants are propagated using the mericlone technique, it generated some 'new' variation in the progeny. The amount of this varies from plant to plant. The mericloned plants are not all necessarily identical to the original plant. This is termed somaclonal variation. It can be useful in plant breeding.
You only have to look at Vulstekyara Cambria 'Plush' to see this happening.
It was mericloned so many times that 'Lensings Favourite' and the orange clone were identified and subsequently mericloned themselves.
Somaclonal variation occurs because the meristem that is used to propagate the plant undergoes many cycles of cell division to produce a callus, before it differentiates into normal new plants. 
If any mutations happen during this phase then they will be multiplied up and can result in noticeable variation in the progeny.
This is what has happened with the Dendrobium hybrid. 
Plants that flower like the parent should get the same clonal name but you could give the plants with the different flowers another clonal name,
Regards,
David


----------



## Kyle (Jan 13, 2011)

Hi Kevin,

I read the original discussion on the other forum. One remark I have is that when you do mericlone, there is a certain amount of mutation. The two most common are pelorics and tetraploids. When those happen, they are given new clonal names, despite being mericlones. 

In regards to clonal names and mericlones. Often overseas vendors don't put clonal names on thier mericlones. Maybe so buyers will buy doubles of the same orchid. There are examples of the same phal being awarded with different clonal names, because they were sold to two different people who assumed they were seed grown because of the lack of clonal name.

Kyle


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2011)

monocotman said:


> hi there,
> Plants that flower like the parent should get the same clonal name but you could give the plants with the different flowers another clonal name,
> Regards,
> David



But what if the genetic variations are not visible?


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2011)

Kyle said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I read the original discussion on the other forum. One remark I have is that when you do mericlone, there is a certain amount of mutation. The two most common are pelorics and tetraploids. When those happen, they are given new clonal names, despite being mericlones.
> 
> ...



No wonder there is so much arguing over whether a plant label is correct. The cloned parents are not genetically what they are labeled.

So back when the old timers said that clones would destroy the orchid hobby they were correct.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2011)

gonewild said:


> But what if the genetic variations are not visible?



Good question... I ever asked it to someone who was studying white spruce clones (spruce cloning was possible just becausse we were cloning embryo, if I can say, not meristem. There was a lot a variation). He did not answer. Of course, nomenclature of spruce and orchids is different in many apects, but not for all!


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2011)

John M said:


> * individual, genetically unique plant, including Paphs, which are never mericloned*



Or very very very rarely mericloned. According to Jason Fischer, it is possible, but very difficult. 

Phrag besseae 'Iccarius' 3N clone:

http://www.orchidweb.com/detail.aspx?ID=1643


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2011)

John M said:


> A peloric flower has 3 complete lips,



Thanks, I didn't know.

I have Den. Anucha Frare and my plant has 3 complete lips.


----------



## monocotman (Jan 13, 2011)

*somaclonal variation*

Hi Erythrone,

it is quite possible that nearly every mericlone differs slightly from the original plant due to these mutations. You just cannot see it in most of them as they are very minor. 
I don't know if anyone has really looked into this.
Have you ever looked at a large group of orchid mericlones in flower and thought that you could see some variation in flower quality but put it down to other factors as they all 'must ' be identical?
I used to prefer buying mericlones when I could see them in flower,
Regards,
David


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2011)

Erythrone said:


> Or very very very rarely mericloned. According to Jason Fischer, it is possible, but very difficult.
> 
> Phrag besseae 'Iccarius' 3N clone:
> 
> http://www.orchidweb.com/detail.aspx?ID=1643



I think in this case the plants were "cloned" but not "mericloned" because they did not actually use meristematic tissue to produce the plantlets. They divided clumps of protocorms which may be actually closer to "dividing" a mature plant than to tissue culture multiplication?


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2011)

Are you sure, gonewild? I thought it was really mericloning. Jason talk about it at the Orchidophiles de Montreal meeting. But I don't undersand English very well. 

Maybe Shiva remembers, if he was at the meeting.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 13, 2011)

I found this on a Ted's paphs and phrags site



*Question 2, can you clone paphs and phrags? Interestingly, the answer
is yes. Or at least you can mericlone Phrag. Sedenii 'Blush' (published
in Die Orchideen quite some time ago, and repeated by Oak Hill), and
stem prop several different Paphs (anecdotally reported to me by a few
different growers who I have no reason to disbelieve). I've personally
cloned some Phrag Hanne Popow (starting from flasked material, but
still...). Mericloning paphs is not very successful. The limiting
factor for all slippers seems to be contamination, in that the meristems
are hard to get free of fungus. It can be done, but not in a reliable
fashion, and getting sufficient material to start often involves
destroying most or all of the growing points on the desired plant. The
growth media mericloning slippers hasn't been worked out, of course,
given all of the other problems. So, given that mericloning very rarely
works and is not unlikely to destroy the parent, it isn't really that
popular an option.*

A grower of perennials who is in business with in vitro culture laboratories told me the same thing for Cypripedium.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 13, 2011)

Erythrone said:


> Are you sure, gonewild? I thought it was really mericloning. Jason talk about it at the Orchidophiles de Montreal meeting. But I don't undersand English very well.
> Maybe Shiva remembers, if he was at the meeting.



I think I am sure? I don't know if protocorm tissue would be considered as meristem cells or not? Here is a part of a thread I found in the archives by Robert.....

" I was able to clone it at the Protocorm stage, so this is a little different compared to cloning say a Phal. In that case they take meristimatic tissue from a known plant, so they already know what the flowers will look like (usually it is an awarded plant), and make 1000's of identical plants from the one meristem. In this case I probably got about 12 to 15 seedlings to germinate from the cross of 'Rob's Choice' x 'Fire Wings'. Of these I was able to clone about 4 of the seedlings at the protocorm stage. I still did not get as many plants as when you would clone say a Phalaenopsis, but I was able to get about 100 to 200 plants from each protocorm. Was I lucky that I was able to clone this 'Iccarus', well yes there is some luck involved, but based on the parents (especially the 'Rob's Choice' which I still think to date is the best besseae out there) I don't think I could go wrong.
Robert"


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jan 13, 2011)

Clone had a horticultural meaning long before any plant was 'mericloned' - that being all the genetically identical individuals arising from vegetative propagation, including the original plant. Even for a single plant that has yet to be propagated it has meaning, making it clear it is a genetically distinct individual. In orchids this makes a 'clonal name' completely interchangeable with the term 'cultivar'. The 'clone' is technically all the genetically identical plants as a group, or a single original plant - the plants themselves, not the name. A minor distinction most of the time.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jan 13, 2011)

gonewild said:


> I don't know if protocorm tissue would be considered as meristem cells or not?



A protocorm before any significant differentiation has taken place is virtually all meristem.


----------



## John M (Jan 13, 2011)

John M said:


> ...individual, genetically unique plant, including Paphs, which are never mericloned.





Erythrone said:


> Or very very very rarely mericloned. According to Jason Fischer, it is possible, but very difficult.
> 
> Phrag besseae 'Iccarius' 3N clone:
> 
> http://www.orchidweb.com/detail.aspx?ID=1643



Please note that I said "Paphs", not Phrags because I know that some Phrags have been cloned. Phrag. Sedenii 'Blush' has been cloned from the meristematic tissue in the elongating flower stem and Phrag. besseae 'Iccarus' has been cloned from the original undiferentiated protocorm that grew from a germinating seed. I have never heard of any Paphs that have been successfully mericloned....in the true sense of the word. Stem props from an elongating rhizome or stolon in Paphs are not clones, they are divisions.


----------



## Ernie (Jan 13, 2011)

John M said:


> Stem props from an elongating rhizome or stolon in Paphs are not clones, they are divisions.



Ahhh, but divisions of the original clone.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

Great discussion guys! Thanks! I've learned some new stuff here and cleared up a few things. So, it turns out I was right all along. This is what I gather so far:

1. A 'clonal name' is a name put in quotes after the species or grex name to identify a specific individual plant, not an actual 'clone', as in exact duplicates. If that plant then gets mericloned, all subsequent plants will have the same clonal name.

2. A 'varietal name' is only used taxonomically to identify varieties of species. To use the term 'variety' when talking about a specific incividual plant, is wrong - the correct term is 'clone' (even though it actually isn't a clone, in the literal definition of the word). 

3. If the plant in question is in fact the only individual around of that grex, then it should have a clonal name, and if it has been mericloned, all plants in circulation _should_ have the same clonal name.

4. If the plant in question is the only individual of that grex, and has been excessively mericloned, some of the mericlones could have come out being peloric.

Would you agree with those statements? If so, could I use your comments to reply to this person, or could you give me a link to a site that states this, a place with some authority, like the AOS or something? I've looked at AOS, and I can't seem to find this through them. Erythrone, your post from the 
AOS handbook is good, but the term 'clonal variety' could lend some credence to a 'variety name' being correct, which is misleading.

Thanks again for all your help!


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

Rick said:


> At least by normal taxo nomenclature, you still don't have the parents back to the original species (and or varieties). Species names will be in lower case.
> 
> Not a biggie as far as the main issues you are concerned with on this thread, but you have what looks like a complex hybrid in this example.
> 
> John I like your serial number analogy.



Sorry, I didn't see that you wanted all the way back to the species. I can do that, if you want...kind of irrelevant, though. Yes, it is a complex hybrid.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

John M said:


> ..



Thanks John! Excellent!


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

Woops, no quote there. You know what you wrote, though.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Ramble through History....
> 
> Back in the late 60's when tissue culture was becoming a way to propogate orchids commercially the process was called "mericloneing" and the resulting plant was called a "mericlone".
> 
> ...



Awesome! Thanks Lance!


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2011)

Kyle said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I read the original discussion on the other forum. One remark I have is that when you do mericlone, there is a certain amount of mutation. The two most common are pelorics and tetraploids. When those happen, they are given new clonal names, despite being mericlones.
> 
> ...



Really? Did you find it through a search, or are you a member?

I am aware of the what some vendors do in this regard. This may have been what happened. It's possible that there isn't just one plant left, and that the other ones also got mericloned.


----------



## John M (Jan 14, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Great discussion guys! Thanks! I've learned some new stuff here and cleared up a few things. So, it turns out I was right all along. This is what I gather so far:
> 
> 1. A 'clonal name' is a name put in quotes after the species or grex name to identify a specific individual plant, not an actual 'clone', as in exact duplicates. If that plant then gets mericloned, all subsequent plants will have the same clonal name.
> 
> ...



Yes Kevin, I agree with those 4 statements. You've got the hang of it now.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 14, 2011)

Thanks. Like I said at the beginning, I do know about this stuff, but I just needed some clear explanation. I knew what it was all about, but I couldn't explain it. You've cleared a lot of things up for me, and the one thing I really didn't know is why we use the term 'clone' for something that is not, infact, a clone. That is a bit clearer now. The one thing I need now is to be able to quote someone, or a link to somewhere, so I can have some back-up for my reply to this guy.


----------



## Kavanaru (Jan 14, 2011)

very interesting discussion... 

Just one comment from my side regarding the 4th statement:


Kevin said:


> 4. If the plant in question is the only individual of that grex, and has been excessively mericloned, some of the mericlones could have come out being peloric.


even thought itis 100% true, it is also half of the story, and therefore could lead to misunderstanding!
After mericloning or any othe kind of tissue cloning you can habe mutated individuals (this can happen also at the first step of cloning, but is more often seen after excesive cloning!). The most commonly seen (marketed at least) is peloric plants, but you can also have any other mutations: larger or smaller flowers, pictoteed flowers, variegated plants, non viable plants (e.g. albino plants - talking about the whole plant, not the flowers!), monstrous plants and so on...


----------



## Shiva (Jan 14, 2011)

Erythrone said:


> Are you sure, gonewild? I thought it was really mericloning. Jason talk about it at the Orchidophiles de Montreal meeting. But I don't undersand English very well.
> 
> Maybe Shiva remembers, if he was at the meeting.



I'm with Lance on this matter. The meanings of words change with time which leads eventually to confusion. I'm not a breeder of orchids and, until now, I thought that the word clone was for merriclone only. This thread has brought me up to speed. Thanks!

As for Jason Fischer's conference in Montréal, what I retained most was him saying that very few Kovachii had actually flowered in various collections. In the case of O.L., only one kovachii has flowered... twice. Now that's a sobering thought. I wonder how many members in this forum have had any success in flowering this plant. I think I'll start a new thread on this subject.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 14, 2011)

Shiva said:


> I thought that the word clone was for merriclone only. This thread has brought me up to speed. Thanks!
> 
> As for Jason Fischer's conference in Montréal, what I retained most was him saying that very few Kovachii had actually flowered in various collections. In the case of O.L., only one kovachii has flowered... twice. Now that's a sobering thought. I wonder how many members in this forum have had any success in flowering this plant. I think I'll start a new thread on this subject.



I've done cloning many years ago, but it was not with mericlone, but with embryo (somatic emryogenesis).

I remember what Jason said in Montreal about Phrag kovachii. It was a big surprise for me.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 14, 2011)

Ernie said:


> Ahhh, but divisions of the original clone.



Nooooo... divisions of a plant of the clone. oke:


----------



## gonewild (Jan 14, 2011)

Kavanaru said:


> very interesting discussion...
> 
> Just one comment from my side regarding the 4th statement:
> 
> ...



Yes and when any mutation is detected the plant should be given a new "clonal"(cultivar) name because it is no longer a member of the original clone and in fact know has begun it's own clone.

:crazy: Even though it is a clone cloned from a clone it is no longer a clone of the clone so it is a new clone. :crazy:


----------



## Kevin (Jan 14, 2011)

gonewild said:


> :crazy: Even though it is a clone cloned from a clone it is no longer a clone of the clone so it is a new clone. :crazy:



Say that 10 trimes fast!:rollhappy::rollhappy:

Is that the same thing that happened to produce the harlequin Phals? I seem to remember something along those lines.


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 14, 2011)

:rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## goldenrose (Jan 17, 2011)

gonewild said:


> ...:crazy: Even though it is a clone cloned from a clone it is no longer a clone of the clone so it is a new clone. :crazy:





Kevin said:


> Say that 10 trimes fast!:rollhappy::rollhappy:


:clap: :rollhappy::rollhappy: :clap:


----------

