# question for Dr Orchid and other breeders



## DukeBoxer (Jul 18, 2007)

I have been thinking for a while about the trends in phrag breeding using phrag besseae and noticing that a lot of the crosses are back crosses with the parent plants, being species or other hybrids, and was wondering this. If you took P. besseae and crossed it with P. schlimii and got P. Hanne Popow with 50% of each species, then crossed Hanne Popow back to P. besseae and got St Ouen, with 75% besseae and 25% schlimii, what would happen if you crossed St Ouen back onto schlimii and had yet again 50% of each species? Would that garner a new Hybrid name or would it just be Hanne Popow again?

Anyone have any idea about that?


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 18, 2007)

i am willing to guess that it would be a distinct hybrid and i feel very confident in this. 
it would be a new hybrid because it's based on parentage not on percentage of parentage. (does that make sense?)


----------



## Hien (Jul 18, 2007)

DukeBoxer said:


> I have been thinking for a while about the trends in phrag breeding using phrag besseae and noticing that a lot of the crosses are back crosses with the parent plants, being species or other hybrids, and was wondering this. If you took P. besseae and crossed it with P. schlimii and got P. Hanne Popow with 50% of each species, then crossed Hanne Popow back to P. besseae and got St Ouen, with 75% besseae and 25% schlimii, what would happen if you crossed St Ouen back onto schlimii and had yet again 50% of each species? Would that garner a new Hybrid name or would it just be Hanne Popow again?
> 
> Anyone have any idea about that?



I may be wrong, but I think the result is:
37.5% besseae & 62.5% schlimii
it is a brand new hybrid.

Hanne popow= 1/2 besseae + 1/2 schlimii
St ouent= ½ (1/2 besseae + 1/2 schlimii) + ½ besseae
= 1/4 besseae + 1/4 schlimii + ½ besseae
= 3/4 besseae + 1/4 schlimii
Duke Boxer= 1/2(3/4 besseae + 1/4 schlimii) + ½ schlimii
= 3/8 besseae + 1/8 schlimii + ½ schlimii
= 3/8 besseae + 5/8 schlimii
Or 37.5% besseae & 62.5% schlimii


----------



## smartie2000 (Jul 18, 2007)

it will get its own grex, and is a distinct hybrid.
Genetics will not be 50% besseae + 50% schilimii like in math, these statistics are only interesting to look at, but the actual genetic makeup of each offspring will be different. If St. Quen is crossed with schilimii, it may get more besseae genes or more schilmii genes depending on what occured genetic recombination during meiosis of each gamete. This is why there is so much variation in the offspring.


----------



## smartie2000 (Jul 18, 2007)

Hien said:


> I may be wrong, but I think the result is:
> 37.5% besseae & 62.5% schlimii
> it is a brand new hybrid.



you are right Hien, I calculated 37.5besseae and 62.5 schilimii. I didn't catch that


----------



## Hien (Jul 18, 2007)

smartie2000 said:


> it will get its own grex, and is a distinct hybrid.
> Genetics will not be 50% besseae + 50% schilimii like in math, these statistics are only interesting to look at, but the actual genetic makeup of each offspring will be different. If St. Quen is crossed with schilimii, it may get more besseae genes or more schilmii genes depending on what occured genetic recombination during meiosis of each gamete. This is why there is so much variation in the offspring.



I think Fren is right, that the naming is only concerned with the parents and not the percentage. So to have a hybrid with different name but with similar percentage of Hanne Popow, we have to cross :
Duke Boxer (3/8 besseae + 5/8 schlimii) with another yet to named hybrid of (5/8 besseae + 3/8 schlimii)


----------



## Drorchid (Jul 18, 2007)

Yes both Fren and Hien, is right. 

Even if it would have been 50% besseae and 50% schlimii, it still would have been a different grex.

As an example:

If you cross Paph. micranthum to Paph. delenatii you get Paph. Magic Lantern (50% micranthum and 50% delenatii)

If you cross Paph. armeniacum to Paph. malipoense you get Paph. Norito Hasegawa (50% armeniacum and 50% malipoense)

If you cross Paph. micranthum to Paph. armeniacum you get Paph. Fanaticum (50% micranthum and 50% armeniacum)

If you cross Paph. delenatii to Paph. malipoense you get Paph. Lynleigh Koopowitz (50% malipoense and 50% delenatii)

Now comes the fun part. If you cross Paph. Magic Lantern to Paph. Norito Hasegawa you get Paph. Kenji Tsutsumi (25% micranthum; 25% delenatii; 25% armeniacum and 25% malipoense).

If you cross Paph. Fanaticum to Paph. Lynleigh Koopowitz (This cross has not been registered yet) you would get exactly the same percentages: 25% micranthum; 25% delenatii; 25% armeniacum and 25% malipoense; but yet this would get a new grex name! Even though it has the same percentages the plants will probably look slightly different (due to what Fren said).

New grex names are not based on percentages of the parent species, but on their direct parentage (hybrid or species parents). If a parent combination is new it will get a new grex name. If grex names were based on percentages of species in their ancestry the naming would become to complex; escpecially when species names keep changing (or 2 species become one etc).

Robert


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 18, 2007)

Drorchid said:


> Yes both Fren and Hien, is right. ...



hey! what about me?...oke:


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

Regarding Dukeboxer's original question. Is he kidding!?!?


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

BTW St. Ouen x besseae = Prissy; St. Ouen x schlimii = St. Eligious.


----------



## Hien (Jul 18, 2007)

likespaphs said:


> i am willing to guess that it would be a distinct hybrid and i feel very confident in this.
> it would be a new hybrid because it's based on parentage not on percentage of parentage. (does that make sense?)



Yes Mr. President, you also are correct.:clap:
By the way, how is the Iraq thing going for you lately?


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 18, 2007)

no! wrong type of president.
i just became president of my orchid society....


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 18, 2007)

NYEric said:


> Regarding Dukeboxer's original question. Is he kidding!?!?



i dunno. i do know that lots of people find the way plants are named confusing. when i give people tours of the greenhouse and try to explain how two different looking plants can be in the same genus just different species, i often get blank stares...
when they leave, they've either had enough of me and pretend to understand or they get it....


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

OK. Of course some of the plants may turn out *looking* similar to one of the parents, St. Eligious looks a lot like a Hanne Popow, but they all have the genetic balance of the parent plants mixed in.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

I don't know if you saw my tour at the 2007 GNYOS show, but I started out at the fragrance table and named the major orchid family types Catts, Dendros, Phals, Ladyslippers, Cymbids, and Pleuros. Then I took the group to a Ladyslipper display . I showed and named Cyps, Phrags, Paphs, Mexi's and Selipeds... I keep it uncomplicated for the common man and ask if there are questions at the end of every stop so I can get a little more in depth as nec.


----------



## Drorchid (Jul 18, 2007)

likespaphs said:


> hey! what about me?...oke:



Sorry, Likespahs is right too!!:wink:


----------



## DukeBoxer (Jul 18, 2007)

Looking back on my question, I realize that the hybrid names are based on the parents and not the percentages of species in the hybrid. I think what I was trying to ask is that, by making these back crosses, wouldn't the flower look about the same as the original Hanne Popow. I just feel that phrag breeding has become a little redundant and most besseae hybrids look the same to me, with just the slightest differences between them.

-Josh


----------



## Candace (Jul 18, 2007)

Yes, I agree with you Josh. That's why it's so nice to see some new alba breeding and the future potential of kovachii breeding.


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 18, 2007)

DukeBoxer said:


> Looking back on my question, I realize that the hybrid names are based on the parents and not the percentages of species in the hybrid. I think what I was trying to ask is that, by making these back crosses, wouldn't the flower look about the same as the original Hanne Popow. I just feel that phrag breeding has become a little redundant and most besseae hybrids look the same to me, with just the slightest differences between them.
> 
> -Josh



now i get it. because of the variability of seed grown plants, they will be, at least a little, different, though they will probably have lots of similarities. perhaps what i should say what smartie said in his first post in this thread....


----------



## DukeBoxer (Jul 18, 2007)

Yeah Candace, thank god they found kovachii right!


----------



## ohio-guy (Jul 18, 2007)

While many of the back crosses may look similar, there may be reasons to pursue that line of breeding as well. Perhaps there will be hybrid vigor, or you will accidentally find a desirable combination of traits that yeild an easier growing or easier blooming plant. 
The big white phals are an example of this I think...they all look rather similar and are probably mostly (phal amablis?) in their genetic heritage, but by multiple back crosses, you you can select for better size better display, easier bloomability etc.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

I agree w/ ohio-guy, plus there are subtle differences thats what make them interesting. I think the biggest influences we'll see soon are in crosses made w/ the flavum besseae and w/ fischeri. Kovachii will take a while to stabilize; then the size and color variants will have a stronger influence. My opinion.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 18, 2007)

DukeBoxer said:


> I just feel that phrag breeding has become a little redundant and most besseae hybrids look the same to me, with just the slightest differences between them.
> -Josh


By the way, lesser comments have gotten fellers tarred 'n feathered!


----------



## Drorchid (Jul 18, 2007)

ohio-guy said:


> While many of the back crosses may look similar, there may be reasons to pursue that line of breeding as well. Perhaps there will be hybrid vigor, or you will accidentally find a desirable combination of traits that yeild an easier growing or easier blooming plant.
> The big white phals are an example of this I think...they all look rather similar and are probably mostly (phal amablis?) in their genetic heritage, but by multiple back crosses, you you can select for better size better display, easier bloomability etc.



:clap::clap: Exactly how I would say it!

Robert


----------

