# The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants



## Guldal (Nov 25, 2020)

In an interresting discussion on the status of a cultivar, that somewhat deviated from the commonly seen forms of the same cross (Lc. Mini Purple 'Tamami'), 'Eds' brought some clarification to the question by refering to the rules laid down in the International Code of Nomemclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). (for this discussion in its entirety, see: Lc. Mini Purple)

As the ICNCP seems to be a tool, a ressource of equal interest for professional and hobby growers (like most of us), I hurry to share the following information:
On the homepage of the International Society for Horticultural Science they offer for free a download (PDF-format) of the ICNCP (Scripta Horticulturae #18) - you can also find an orderform for buying it as a hardcover book and support their work:








International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, Ninth Edition | International Society for Horticultural Science







www.ishs.org


----------



## eds (Nov 25, 2020)

To check it is fully relevant to orchids with the use of grexes and other peculiarities, I did check and the RHS have this summary / guideline specifically for orchid hybrids,
https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/pdfs/...id-grex,-groups-and-cultivar-names-guidelines


----------



## Guldal (Nov 25, 2020)

eds said:


> To check it is fully relevant to orchids with the use of grexes and other peculiarities, I did check and the RHS have this summary / guideline specifically for orchid hybrids,
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw0B1Cdaotdv_e77RYohc4kR[/URL]


Seemingly the link is invalid?!


----------



## eds (Nov 25, 2020)

I shall fix it! Give me a moment to find it again!

How's that?


----------



## Guldal (Nov 25, 2020)

Great!


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 26, 2020)

eds said:


> To check it is fully relevant to orchids with the use of grexes and other peculiarities, I did check and the RHS have this summary / guideline specifically for orchid hybrids,
> https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/pdfs/...id-grex,-groups-and-cultivar-names-guidelines



Nice link eds.

There is a nice line in that document that says 'distinguish an individual within a population'.

So for C. Mini Purple 'Tamami' (for example) ...... the individual will be 'Tamami'.

I will take it that any division or clone of the original of 'Tamami' will be genetically identical to 'Tamami'. If there just so-happens to be a change in genetics - then it won't be 'Tamami' anymore - even if we don't know it (due to uncertainty).

Also importantly - clone means clone ----- not a mericlone that mutated. Anything that became or becomes mutated (changed in genetics - even slightly) won't be a 'clone'.

So a plant having a particular clonal name distinguishes an individual (genetically) from all the other members.


----------



## terryros (Nov 27, 2020)

My understanding is that Cattleya percivaliana ‘Mendenhall Summit’ was a unique plant in a population of mericloned ‘Summit’. That plant would then be registered as a unique cultivar. Before that happened, it would have been called ‘Summit’ by most growers? It would be up to us to identify when a mericlone is detectably changed from the original parent. As another example, I have two different plants, bought at two different times, of Cattleya Betty Ford ‘York’ AM, but the plants are detectably different in growth habit and modestly different in flower color/substance/shape. I don’t think this is related to mislabeling of plants but to the variation that sometimes happens with mericloning.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 27, 2020)

terry ----- correct! The situation is due to uncertainty. Not being sure about whether a mericlone is actually a 'clone', which is where things all go pear-shaped. The meri-stem propagation methods that we still use today apparently produces both clones and mutations ------ some probability involved. The clones will have the same DNA as the original, while the others that ended up with mutations won't be clones. It is the situation of a mixed bag - which messes up the system. Not much can be done about this at the moment.

Naming is just invented by people. So I'm thinking that if we can ignore names, and enjoy the orchids and their flowers as they are, then that's really great. The names can at least be useful though - for purposes of discussing and chatting about an orchid and its flowers.


----------



## eds (Nov 27, 2020)

As I said in the other thread, the chances are lots of the mericlones (and every other clone) have some transcription errors.

The difference is some of those errors will be in genes that are expressed and therefore change the appearance of the plant (phenotype) whereas most will be in either areas of junk DNA, non-expressed genes or in expressed genes but they don't change the expressed protein sufficiently to cause a visible change of appearance.

It's why you should ignore this idea of a clone being genetically identical and concentrate on the physical appearance or other physical attributes when deciding if a cultivar needs a new name.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 27, 2020)

eds ...... I know what you mean there. Although, based on the definition of a clone (being genetically identical) ----- some other word should be given or generated, that means something along the lines of 'imperfect copy-attempt'. I just want to not misuse or corrupt words such as 'clone'. A clone is a genetically identical copy-attempt result.

I agree that there's not much (or even anything) we can do about the current system and the current technology --- no cheap and accurate and quick DNA test, and no DNA database bank for accurate DNA references of all the orchids (and also knowing that many original hybrids didn't make it, and other issues). Basically - the system is sort of messed up due to uncertainty. We could however - keep turning a blind eye - and live with it. Which is what we've been doing anyway hehehe. The important thing at least is that we know what's going on, and why the system is messed up. Due to uncertainty, and maybe even due to corrupting definitions of words such as 'clone'.

It all comes back to the key line too ------ distinguishing an INDIVIDUAL from the population (all other members).


----------



## terryros (Nov 27, 2020)

I think I like to use the term “mericlone” rather than clone. Mericlone implies the particular process we use with meristematic tissue to get plants. Intrinsic to this process is some genetic shuffling. We all know that identical twins in humans are never completely identical even though they are coming from the same two germ cells. I was reminded today (and commented in another chain going on) that Carter and Holmes, while meristeming Cattleya percivaliana ‘Summit’ found one of the resulting plants to be better in several ways and named this cultivar ‘Mendenhall-Summit’. If we want something truly identical to an original plant, we need a division. A meristem is a gamble - we could get something worse, something equal to, or even something a little better than the original. I agree that it would have been best if in the very beginning there had been a code that designated whether a plant was a division of mericlone. If I remember correctly, Hausermann’s tag used to have a Z designation for seedlings which were mericlones.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 27, 2020)

True terry. Mericlone is the process ----- involving the meristem propagation methods. While 'clonal name' and 'clone' are pretty much very clearly defined ...... the issue is that people strayed down the wrong path from the beginning, because they didn't understand or know until maybe later about what can and does happen with the regular or classical meristem propagation processes. That's why the system and 'clonal name' scheme was in a pickle from the start. But I guess we needed a system ----- otherwise we can't trade, or communicate or talk about orchids very well hehehe. So we just have to live with it. Definitely better than nothing for sure.


----------



## Ray (Nov 28, 2020)

Doesn’t “cloning” always use meristematic tissue, and isn’t that the name of the process?

I dislike the (sloppy) broad use of the term to indicate any duplicate, even if a division.

Clone, division, and seed-grown are three, entirely different things in my mind.


----------



## terryros (Nov 28, 2020)

I think Ray is correct in that "cloning" is the general biologic technique that is being used, but with orchids it is meristem tissue that is being chemically provoked to form new plants. The terms clone and mericlone are really synonymous in orchids. I guess the important thing is to realize that although a clone and a division will have identical formal name tags, including carrying any awards that the parent plant may have received, a clone can be modestly different from the parent plant because of things that happen during the cloning process. A clone could unusually be better than the parent plant but it has at least as much chance of being worse. That is why divisions usually command a premium price.


----------



## eds (Nov 28, 2020)

A clone isn't necessarily produced by cloning as we understand the biological in vitro process. The term clone was around before the cloning process!

Strictly speaking every vegetatively propagated plant is a clone - it just means an identical copy.


----------



## terryros (Nov 28, 2020)

That is why we need a clear distinction between a division (the vegetatively propagated plant) versus the mericloned plant. However, witch no agreement on how to denote this on a label and with so many uncertain plants out there, we are probably lost anyway. I am only confident that my Paphiopedilum Maudiae ‘Bankhaus’ (aka ‘The Queen’) is a division of the original plant from way back and this is because of provenance AND the fact that slippers are minimally cloned. I couldn’t have much confidence that any classic species or hybrid Cattleya was a true division from the original line.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 28, 2020)

Indeed ----- it is true that the 'cloning' process is a general name we use for attempts at copying ----- with the aims of the process being to make 'clones'. And this is where definition is very important. A clone is an identical genetic copy. Any result that isn't identical to the original in genetics (with emphasis placed on identical) - or sometime in the future mutates - is not a clone or no longer a clone.

In the presence of uncertainty - we can at least make some judgement - as in ------- if an orchid has obvious or noticeable and consistent features that aren't the same as the other assumed 'clones' ------ then that individual orchid should be considered different ---- different from the rest, and also assumed it is not a clone, or is no longer a clone. So that individual should have a different single quotes name - to distinguish it from the other members. Or - when noticeable visible differences are detected ------ putting a question mark on the tag -- or '???' a few question marks, may be useful.

And when we mean 'original' ---- it will mean original at the time of copying attempt ----- because for all we know --- the original could also possibly mutate in the future - not sure hehehe


----------



## Guldal (Nov 28, 2020)

I agree with you both, Terry and Ed.

For historical reasons it seems that in Cattleyas, the ship has to a large extent sailed. That is, unless you have 100% reliable and trustworthy information on the provenience of the plants (as f.ex. "my grandfather got this plant awarded and it's been in the family's possesion ever since" from someone you really trust).
I don't know, whether it would have helped, if there had been a rule about the designation of mericloned plants from the beginnig? Maybe to some extent, but it seems we are really in the realm of trust here, right?
(By the way, I've seen some European vendors having added an 'mc' to the nametags of some of their Catts - I might be barking up a totally wrong tree, but always assumed, this indicated, that the plant was mericloned?)

For practical purposes, outside of breeding, I wonder, if there are other concerns to worry about for the average hobby grower, than whether he or she has drawn a blank in the meristem lottery, and "won" a plant with inferior quality flowers compared to the mother plant?


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 28, 2020)

They add MC (mericlone) ----- for nice information, and respecting customers, and maybe also as a shield or safety ---- so that the customers can understand what they're in for ...... a possible lottery bag thing. It's just to say that the orchid we're getting might not be what we want(ed) to get.

But having said 'mixed bag' and 'lottery' ------ sometimes a grower can end up with something amazing, spectacular, unique/individual. So some good stuff can come out of it too. So luck of the draw ----- can be good for some.


----------



## terryros (Nov 28, 2020)

Reasons it matters:

1. For breeders to know what they are using
2. For awards
3. For sales, so a seller is not overpaying for an original that is really a copy (and maybe inferior)

Must be missing something


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 28, 2020)

terryros said:


> I think Ray is correct in that "cloning" is the general biologic technique that is being used, but with orchids it is meristem tissue that is being chemically provoked to form new plants. The terms clone and mericlone are really synonymous in orchids. I guess the important thing is to realize that although a clone and a division will have identical formal name tags, including carrying any awards that the parent plant may have received, a clone can be modestly different from the parent plant because of things that happen during the cloning process. A clone could unusually be better than the parent plant but it has at least as much chance of being worse. That is why divisions usually command a premium price.


 BUT, the rub is in the nomenclature!! Once named, the cultivar of a species cross or hybrid becomes a “clone” and has a “clonal name”. That does nothing but confuse the issue for those of us who are trying to figure all of this out. It feels like sabotage!! Can we petition for terms that don’t overlap and mean different things?


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 28, 2020)

terryros said:


> Reasons it matters:
> 
> 1. For breeders to know what they are using
> 2. For awards
> ...



I think you pretty much covered it all there terry.

When I was searching for Rlc. Memoria Helen Brown 'Sweet Afton' in Australia, I purchased a plant that had that exact name on the tag, but ended up with a plant that had these flowers. So it turns out not to be what I was searching for. But at the end - ended up absolutely not complaining! I welcomed it. It turned out to be exactly my 'cup of tea' or 'can of coke' ...... and the name in the single quotes ('Sweet Afton m. Splash') is just arbitrary on my tag for it. Very coincidentally - this one is about to flower again soon. Two buds on it at the moment. Almost there.

I grow for pure enjoyment of orchids - pretty much the same as many other orchid growers. Collecting based on their names and their awards has never been in my activities (although, us growers at least need to have a name in order to try acquire the orchid that we want to grow - as in seeing a particular flower, and wishing to grow that orchid to see its flowers at home at our own leisure, as well as the opportunity to care for that orchid).

Regarding award codes ..... I don't put award codes on my orchid tags. But I can definitely understand the point of view of others - breeders, competitors, etc - for needing cultivar names and award codes. Totally respect that.


----------



## terryros (Nov 29, 2020)

If the mericlone process was perfect, the resulting plants would be identical to a division from the plant and we wouldn’t have an issue. However, biology always searches for variability. How can a single fertilized human egg divide in two and produce twins that are very much the same, but still detectably different in some ways? It is the way organisms do some genetic shuffling and activation/inactivation during cell division in order to produce differences. 

If we could do it over again from the beginning of orchid cloning, we would have put a D or C after the cultivar name (and award) to indicate division or clone. Now that this is impossible, we should approach buying a named cultivar like buying art. Is the provenance certain or uncertain? Has it bloomed and shown itself to be almost identical to what we know about the original? When there is uncertainty, maybe we shouldn’t pay premium price for a gamble. Having a certified “piece” (division) of a great plant (tested virus free) should command a high price.


----------



## Guldal (Nov 29, 2020)

terryros said:


> If the mericlone process was perfect, the resulting plants would be identical to a division from the plant and we wouldn’t have an issue. However, biology always searches for variability. How can a single fertilized human egg divide in two and produce twins that are very much the same, but still detectably different in some ways? It is the way organisms do some genetic shuffling and activation/inactivation during cell division in order to produce differences.
> 
> If we could do it over again from the beginning of orchid cloning, we would have put a D or C after the cultivar name (and award) to indicate division or clone. Now that this is impossible, we should approach buying a named cultivar like buying art. Is the provenance certain or uncertain? Has it bloomed and shown itself to be almost identical to what we know about the original? When there is uncertainty, maybe we shouldn’t pay premium price for a gamble. Having a certified “piece” (division) of a great plant (tested virus free) should command a high price.


A magnificent summing up and clearly voiced proposal of guidelines/advice how to (somehow) deal with a to some extent unsolveable situation!

I have in the litterature encountered lots of advice on good growing (some better than others) and sometimes also on how to select a plant for beginners, but not really seen this complex topic expounded on.
Terry, I think it would be a sad thing to see your succint advice burried in a thread with a caption, that I guess might appear unappealing to many.
Maybe, at some point in time someone would take the trouble to summ it all up in a thread with a title more 'sexy" title, f.ex. 'Cattleyas - divisions and mericlones: a guideline for buyers'. Could also contain clarification of the different terms and advice on relevant questions to ask the seller.
I think such a summing up could be conceived in a way, that would appeal to people with a newer, but growing interest in Catts, and at the same time also to more experienced Catt-growers. Of course not to professionals and experts, but from the interest, this thread and some other recent threads, where the topic has been raised in the discussion of individual plants, it appears, there is an interest.
A thread 'in these pages' would of course only be for STC-users, but maybe some of the larger orchid societies on both sides of the Atlantic might have an interest in uploading such advice/guidelines on their web page or publish it as an article in their magazines?

PS. A dissemenation of such knowledge might help raising the awareness of buyers, and thus most likely be a help for the serious and honest Cattley-sellers vs. the shadier ones in the business.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 29, 2020)

terryros said:


> I think Ray is correct in that "cloning" is the general biologic technique that is being used, but with orchids it is meristem tissue that is being chemically provoked to form new plants. The terms clone and mericlone are really synonymous in orchids. I guess the important thing is to realize that although a clone and a division will have identical formal name tags, including carrying any awards that the parent plant may have received, a clone can be modestly different from the parent plant because of things that happen during the cloning process. A clone could unusually be better than the parent plant but it has at least as much chance of being worse. That is why divisions usually command a premium price.


Where this is so frustrating to me is that (I think this is right) a named cultivar (of an original, seedling or mericlone) is referred to as a clone and its ‘name’ referred to as its clonal name. So, as was said, the lack of definition and interchange of terms (clone vs. mericlone) means that we never know what someone is talking about. Since I’m not selling my plants or divisions it doesn’t matter much long term to me, but I like details to be correct so it makes me nuts. Especially when trying to figure this terminology out so I write or say the correct thing. And, so that I understand vendors’ listings.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 29, 2020)

Guldal said:


> A magnificent summing up and clearly voiced proposal of guidelines/advice how to (somehow) deal with a to some extent unsolveable situation!
> 
> I have in the litterature encountered lots of advice on good growing (some better than others) and sometimes also on how to select a plant for beginners, but not really seen this complex topic expounded on.
> Terry, I think it would be a sad thing to see your succint advice burried in a thread with a caption, that I guess might appear unappealing to many.
> ...


AMEN! Terry, I would really encourage (May I say beg?!) you, as well in this area!! But Guidal, Terry is not one to usually publish his extensive research. I’ve been encouraging him to do it with his research on LEDs since I began learning from him. No luck so far.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 29, 2020)

terryros said:


> How can a single fertilized human egg divide in two and produce twins that are very much the same, but still detectably different in some ways? It is the way organisms do some genetic shuffling and activation/inactivation during cell division in order to produce differences.



Not sure terry. I assume that identical twins have the same DNA - and the differences will just be along the lines of what they're exposed to, and how much they eat. Eg. One might eat more than the other, and hang out out with different friends ---- exposed to different things. Get more or less sun than the other. As long as they don't for some reason have their whole body DNA mutate (X-files stuff) ....... then the two will have the same DNA.

In the presence of uncertainty - such as today, and maybe forever - in the orchid world ------ we could still turn a blind eye on clonal names ....... even when there is uncertainty as to whether an orchid has the same DNA as the 'original' ----- but we definitely shouldn't turn a blind on orchids that are visibly different than the rest of the 'assumed' bunch having the same clonal single quotes name ------ such as an orchid with variegated leaves ---- while none of the countless other members (having the same clonal name tags) have variegated leaves.


----------



## Guldal (Nov 29, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> Not sure terry. I assume that identical twins have the same DNA - and the differences will just be along the lines of what they're exposed to, and how much they eat. Eg. One might eat more than the other, and hang out out with different friends ---- exposed to different things.


I once had a postcard with a drawing of two scientists, representing the two polar positions in the Nature versus Nurture debate. However one thing they _would _agree upon was the conclusion: "It's all Mum's fault"!


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 29, 2020)

Guldal said:


> I once had a postcard with a drawing of two scientists, representing the two polar positions of the Nature versus Nurture debate. However one thing they _would _agree upon was the conclusion: "It's all Mum's fault"!



hahahaha!!!!! And 'dad' had no say in it? hehehe


----------



## terryros (Nov 29, 2020)

I think it is technically first a “cultivar” name, meaning it belongs to a particular plant. I also think that a beginning (some might say “mother”) plant isn’t a clone. A clone is something that comes off of a plant of origin. Once a division has been made or a mericlone created, those plants are now clones of the original.

I will think about making a new summary post of some of this stuff, while linking to this chain as well. I will pass this by Deb to be sure it is hitting the points.

While the starting genetic material of twins is identical, the genetic material is altered differently during stages of growth and differentiation of each individual. We sometimes don’t recognize how important genes being amplified or turned on or off during development can be. This results in important differences in the end organism. I think of the Bryan Brothers tennis players - identical twins, but differences in size, handed-ness, and probably some other things, even though they were raised identically.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 29, 2020)

True Terry. But whether a gene is turned on or off ...... plants having the same DNA will ...... have the same DNA set, right?

For orchids, I assume that whatever the DNA set/sequence is of the original plant ---- at that time is ----- a division is expected to have the same DNA sequence, and a clone (according to actual definition of clone) will have the same DNA sequence. Anything that has (or will have later) different DNA will not or no longer be a 'clone'.

What actually matters is what's going on inside the system ------ with the DNA. If there's uncertainty about it, and if there's nothing we can do about that uncertainty for now (or ever) ------ then we just have to make assumptions with the orchid tags.

But certainly ------ if no other countless members has leaf variegation --- while one odd million one out has variegation ----- then we just got to do the normal thing and say ------ it's definitely not the same, and should not have the same clonal name. Because something is visibly and very clearly different with it.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 29, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> Not sure terry. I assume that identical twins have the same DNA - and the differences will just be along the lines of what they're exposed to, and how much they eat. Eg. One might eat more than the other, and hang out out with different friends ---- exposed to different things. Get more or less sun than the other. As long as they don't for some reason have their whole body DNA mutate (X-files stuff) ....... then the two will have the same DNA.
> 
> In the presence of uncertainty - such as today, and maybe forever - in the orchid world ------ we could still turn a blind eye on clonal names ....... even when there is uncertainty as to whether an orchid has the same DNA as the 'original' ----- but we definitely shouldn't turn a blind on orchids that are visibly different than the rest of the 'assumed' bunch having the same clonal single quotes name ------ such as an orchid with variegated leaves ---- while none of the countless other members (having the same clonal name tags) have variegated leaves.


SouthPark, we have identical twins. DNA testing showed they are identical twins, however have genetic differences. Although they were pretty impossible to tell apart before they became adults and their personalities and styles differentiated, we doubted they were identical as one has a rudimentary third kidney and the other has a mild bleeding disorder (Von Willebrand Factor). Yale Medical wrote it up because it was so unusual to see in identical twins. When they were born, all we knew was that it was a single placenta, shown on x-ray, as it was before amniocentesis and those things. But placentas can fuse, so we were not 100% sure. So, we had DNA testing done. Identical they are, but one carries a variant for a certain disease that the other doesn’t and vice-versa. So, identical in humans does not mean (even though a single egg split) that the DNA one ends up with is identical to the other. Not to ruffle any feathers, but my personal belief is that it should not be surprising. If God didn’t even create two snowflakes alike, each creature certainly would be a unique individual. I think it’s pretty cool, actually... Oh, and another twist is that the testing showed each twin is the mother of the other twin’s children!! Wrap your head around that one. And by the way, DNA can change when subjected to extreme physiological stress. Astronaut Mark Kelly is an identical twin. When he returned from many months (maybe a year) on the Int’l Space Station he was no longer genetically identical to his twin. The physiological stresses of space over that time changed his DNA. Whether or not it will revert in time and he will be identical to his twin again, remains to be seen.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 29, 2020)

SB ...... you mentioned they are identical twins but yet have genetic differences. This may be a contradiction in conditions. Identical, but yet not identical.

Think of data file. Copying or cloning or backing up a data file has the meaning of producing a duplicate that has the same information. When we 'clone' an orchid, or make a division - we need to be specific about the word clone. And to be specific ------ we take the definition of it as meaning genetically identical to the original. Any deviation in the sequence ------ then not identical, and not a 'clone' - or '*no longer*' a clone.

Now ------ if producing a 'clone' in organisms is possible, then that is fine - so we will be able to say that it is indeed possible to have orchids (the clones) having identical DNA sequence (identical to the original at the time of duplicating attempt). But if it's not possible, then we probably need to form some other naming system - which is probably what terry and you are suggesting.


----------



## eds (Nov 30, 2020)

As I wrote earlier in this thread and also in this thread, Lc. Mini Purple that spawned this one, clones aren't always genetically identical due to somatic mutations during cellular division.

This happens to all organisms and will have happened in your cells as you grew and lived so that if you were to sequence each cell in your body there would be some (slight) differences in the genome of different cells.

Whether a gene is expressed or not is controlled by other genes and a mutation in these can change expression or different conditions can cause different expression without genetic change.

So identical means they started from an identical source more than them remaining identical, much like our orchid divisions.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 30, 2020)

eds ..... thanks for adding that. Does that mean - regardless of division or original or clone ----- all hypothetically having exactly the same DNA at the beginning ------- all three will eventually mutate? I personally don't mind it if that happens, as I only try to find orchids having flowers that are more or less what I aimed to find - and the name is just useful for me to try to find particular orchids with flower features I'm looking for. And even if they were to mutate enough (by chance) to get different features than what I started with ----- then I don't mind too, as I would have at least enjoyed what I had seen (and also would have taken a heap of photographs for nice memories).


----------



## Guldal (Nov 30, 2020)

Thank you Belle for contributing with your twin story - I think, we can conclude from it and Ed's expounding on it, that genetics is a much more complex thing than most of us imagine!

Maybe, it actually is like snowflakes: all built on a hexagonal foundation, but with myriads of forms - and inuits having hundreds of ways of describing snow!


----------



## Ray (Nov 30, 2020)

I just took a look at the etymology of the word “clone” and it was coined in 1903 as “clon” to indicate any piece of vegetative material used for asexual reproduction (which might support what I called the “sloppy use”of the word), but it was actually further limited to tissues that were used for grafting, for which a division would not qualify.

While that might support my assessment of broad, sloppy use, if we - _the orchid community - _could agree to commonly use “clone” as a general term and “mericlone” to indicate a plant grown from meristematic tissue culture, we might be better off.

Hmmm... Reading what I just wrote makes me think we need to differentiate “tissue culture” a different category, as well. Just about every chrysanthemum we’ve ever seen is cultured from stem end cuttings. Not exactly a “division”, but certainly not cultured meristematic tissue, either.

So, knowing that to a plant, the meristematic tissue is a cluster of living, undifferentiated cells (equivalent to “stem cells” in animals) that can develop into pretty much any kind of living tissue, it would seem that - in terms of being identical to the “donor” plant - divisions (including keikies) come the closest, tissue cultured plants (including phal inflorescence culture) would be next, and mericlones being the least reliable.

I suppose tissue-cultured plants are also as identical as divisions, but I suppose the chemical treatments used to induce growth might cause genetic shifting, so I’ll mentally hold onto that difference.

(edit/post script). This is precisely why I really like this forum. We get into discussions of import, and help each other come to agreement or civil, settled-on disagreement, rather than just “Here’s a picture of my flowering plant”, or “Jane, you ignorant ****” commentary.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 30, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> SB ...... you mentioned they are identical twins but yet have genetic differences. This may be a contradiction in conditions. Identical, but yet not identical.
> 
> Think of data file. Copying or cloning or backing up a data file has the meaning of producing a duplicate that has the same information. When we 'clone' an orchid, or make a division - we need to be specific about the word clone. And to be specific ------ we take the definition of it as meaning genetically identical to the original. Any deviation in the sequence ------ then not identical, and not a 'clone' - or '*no longer*' a clone.
> 
> Now ------ if producing a 'clone' in organisms is possible, then that is fine - so we will be able to say that it is indeed possible to have orchids (the clones) having identical DNA sequence (identical to the original at the time of duplicating attempt). But if it's not possible, then we probably need to form some other naming system - which is probably what terry and you are suggesting.


All I can tell you is what the DNA report said. Identical twins (monozygotic) that carry variants to certain disease potential as well as the physical anomaly of the 3rd kidney and Von Willebrand Factor. . It is way over my head, obviously, however as Terry mentioned cell division can be interesting in its results. 
Re orchids, I’m not suggesting anything. I’m just trying to understand terminology that differentiates one thing from another and find it confusing that a cultivar would have a ‘clonal’ name and be referred to as a clone when it is not a mericlone. When people get serious about growing and start purchasing more expensive plants, it would seem better to me to have them clearly defined so everyone (growers and purchasers) are on the same page. No agenda here, just truly trying to learn something that, in this context, is not at all well defined. And to your point about our taking clone to be a genetically identical copy at the time of duplication, perhaps as DNA research progresses we will find maybe not as genetically identical as we think. The genetic code is made up of other parts that might or might not differentiate. There is still so much, about so much, we don’t know and definitions of words do change. It would seem to me cattleyas should be indicated to be (preferably on the label) mericlones unless specific provenance knows differently. I have purchased original divisions that have it listed on the growers label. If a grower is that sure of a plant being a division of the original plant rather than a mericlones plant, and is willing to put it on his/her label, then that speaks volumes.


----------



## eds (Nov 30, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> eds ..... thanks for adding that. Does that mean - regardless of division or original or clone ----- all hypothetically having exactly the same DNA at the beginning ------- all three will eventually mutate? I personally don't mind it if that happens, as I only try to find orchids having flowers that are more or less what I aimed to find - and the name is just useful for me to try to find particular orchids with flower features I'm looking for. And even if they were to mutate enough (by chance) to get different features than what I started with ----- then I don't mind too, as I would have at least enjoyed what I had seen (and also would have taken a heap of photographs for nice memories).



The rate of mutation varies with which part of the genome and why type of cells you're looking at but yet they all have a rate of mutation.

This is sometimes called a molecular clock and it is one of the ways you can extrapolate when species diverged from each other (though you tend to use other evidence alongside the rate of mutation as so many factors can influence it).

It's often not a case of the amount of mutation that changes features but where mutations crop up! A single base pair change could have a significant impact in one location whereas lots of mutations in another section might do nothing!


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 30, 2020)

eds said:


> It's often not a case of the amount of mutation that changes features but where mutations crop up! A single base pair change could have a significant impact in one location whereas lots of mutations in another section might do nothing!



Nice comments eds. Now ------- regarding the amount of mutation ---- that will be linked to location too. Because eventually - one could assume that given a long enough time, eventually something is going to happen in a particular location. Amount also involves time, linked to rate.


----------



## eds (Nov 30, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> Nice comments eds. Now ------- regarding the amount of mutation ---- that will be linked to location too. Because eventually - one could assume that given a long enough time, eventually something is going to happen in a particular location. Amount also involves time, linked to rate.



Absolutely but given the length of the genome it is more likely that there won't be a mutation just where you want it, rather than there being one!

Also the cell nucleus tends to pack the more important coding sections of DNA nearer the centre so any radiation has to pass through the junk DNA first, protecting important genes and also the cell machinery to repair DNA will concentrate on protecting these vital areas too reducing the mutation rate.

And organisms that grow faster have more cell division so higher rates of mutation (as will areas of your body that grow / repair faster).

And if you will in an area of higher mutagenic influence (not just nuclear reactors...!) you can have a higher rate of mutation.

So the rate of mutation varies a lot but with some known markers in time, a lot of statistics and a bit of luck (or educated guessing) you can average it out onto a usable bit of information.

And if you've want to create mutations you can't really do much about the cells protection but you can increase its exposure to mutagenic elements. As I understand some people have done to some succulents in parts of the world to cause some bizarre mutations.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 30, 2020)

SB ------ yes, I think you're right. It does sound like the orchid naming system might need a review ------ or a re-think of terminology/words. Or at least an article from a major body (eg. RHS, AOS etc) be generated - that conveys a message about orchids ---- originals and divisions and clones ------- can/will mutate. So maybe even a clonal name for the original could scientifically be pointless ------ but at least still have some usage for trading, buying etc ...... as we just need to call it something in order to sell it or refer to it, or have discussions about a particular orchid.


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 30, 2020)

Very nice post eds. I think that points like those ----- which should be considered, need to be included in an article from say AOS or RHS etc ------ so that it tells growers or warns growers (gives heads-up) on orchid names ------ such as regardless of division or clone or otherwise, the single quote names will be based on assumptions - with uncertainty involved. 

This is all just ignoring other factors - such as possibility of picking up viruses and permanent disease, and also environment (growing/culture) factors - that can lead to colour and pattern differences in orchid flowers.


----------



## terryros (Nov 30, 2020)

My reading is agreeing with what everyone here is saying. The only way to have an orchid that is truly identical to another is to get a division of the one. 

What ever the tissue used and what ever chemical/physical process is used to provoke the tissue to make protocorm-like bodies that differentiate into new plants, the chance for variation is high. The change can be actual genetic change or it can be altered gene expression during development. Either way, the resulting plant may be noticeably different from the parent. We all think we should know whether we are buying a division or some type of clone.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 30, 2020)

Ray said:


> I just took a look at the etymology of the word “clone” and it was coined in 1903 as “clon” to indicate any piece of vegetative material used for asexual reproduction (which might support what I called the “sloppy use”of the word), but it was actually further limited to tissues that were used for grafting, for which a division would not qualify.
> 
> While that might support my assessment of broad, sloppy use, if we - _the orchid community - _could agree to commonly use “clone” as a general term and “mericlone” to indicate a plant grown from meristematic tissue culture, we might be better off.
> 
> ...


 The last line took me back a few years!! I wholeheartedly agree, Ray. From someone who grew on windowsills for 20+ years and could get nothing to bloom but Phals, before moving to a controlled environment under lights 3 years ago, this forum is very valuable. A lot of gray matter here from deep thinking individuals (way beyond my level of expertise) who share info, experience and perspectives from all over the planet mostly with unusual humility and civility in these times when both are rare.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 30, 2020)

terryros said:


> My reading is agreeing with what everyone here is saying. The only way to have an orchid that is truly identical to another is to get a division of the one.
> 
> What ever the tissue used and what ever chemical/physical process is used to provoke the tissue to make protocorm-like bodies that differentiate into new plants, the chance for variation is high. The change can be actual genetic change or it can be altered gene expression during development. Either way, the resulting plant may be noticeably different from the parent. We all think we should know whether we are buying a division or some type of clone.


Not to go off on another rabbit trail, but it begs the question of how (other than the obvious 3N, 4N, 5N changes) colchicine treatment fits into all of this?


----------



## SouthPark (Nov 30, 2020)

Ray said:


> This is precisely why I really like this forum. We get into discussions of import, and help each other come to agreement or civil, settled-on disagreement, rather than just “Here’s a picture of my flowering plant”, or “Jane, you ignorant ****” commentary.



Ray --- you ignorant ******!!!!! -------- is certainly not a nice thing to say to somebody for sure heheh. Us guests on somebody's forum have to set good examples for everybody. Good to have you as a moderator here.


----------



## southernbelle (Nov 30, 2020)

Guldal said:


> Thank you Belle for contributing with your twin story - I think, we can conclude from it and Ed's expounding on it, that genetics is a much more complex thing than most of us imagine!
> 
> Maybe, it actually is like snowflakes: all built on a hexagonal foundation, but with myriads of forms - and inuits having hundreds of ways of describing snow!


#wisdom


----------



## monocotman (Dec 1, 2020)

Southernbelle, the issue of polypoids in meristem culture is interesting. I remember in one of the cattleya forum talks on YouTube, one of the speakers spent time looking for them in populations produced from tissue culture. 
He looked for plants that were slower growing and smaller than their peers in a group of mericlones. His idea was that these could be tetraploids which would be more useful to him in breeding. He did find them at low frequencies. When they eventually flowered they could be slightly different to the others, larger blooms with fuller petals etc. These would be ok to rename as they were clearly different to the rest of the group.


----------



## Ray (Dec 1, 2020)

SouthPark said:


> Ray --- you ignorant ******!!!!! -------- is certainly not a nice thing to say to somebody for sure heheh. Us guests on somebody's forum have to set good examples for everybody. Good to have you as a moderator here.


In case you’re not aware... There used to be a political debate show called “Point, Counterpoint”, that got a bit heated at times (but nothing like the BS on tv these days). Saturday Night Live did a comedy take on it with Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin. His opening response was “Jane, You ignorant s l u t.”. (Had to space out the letters to avoid having the forum software asterisk it out again...)


----------



## NewYorkBuilt (Dec 1, 2020)

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through this thicket of opinion and fact on nomenclature and practical applications of science and academic compromises. After thirty years of moderating panels of arts managers and artists gathered to award philanthropic and tax-based arts funding, this same process occurred in conflicted detail over things like "performance art" or "video documentation versus live audit." 

If memory serves me, one might, in keeping with the SNL theme retort, "Dan, you pompous ass!" But I prefer this genteel and erudite conversation.

Y'all are not alone! But I jus' like the purtty flowers, in my humblest opinion. Please continue!


----------



## Phred (Dec 1, 2020)

terryros said:


> That is why we need a clear distinction between a division (the vegetatively propagated plant) versus the mericloned plant. However, witch no agreement on how to denote this on a label and with so many uncertain plants out there, we are probably lost anyway. I am only confident that my Paphiopedilum Maudiae ‘Bankhaus’ (aka ‘The Queen’) is a division of the original plant from way back and this is because of provenance AND the fact that slippers are minimally cloned. I couldn’t have much confidence that any classic species or hybrid Cattleya was a true division from the original line.


And just to add another twist to the conversation... divisions of a plant are not always genetically identical. In the genus Hosta many of the plants registered each year are plants referred to as ‘Sports’. A ‘Sport’ is a mutation that occurs as a plant increases in numbers of eyes (growths). At a point the plant may produce an eye... leading to a new growth that is totally different from the original plant. The new growth can be different in many ways... color, solis or variegation, size of plant, size of leaf, leaf shape, texture, wavy or not, shiny or not etc. an example of one of my Hosta with a sport is below. The original plant is variegated and the sport is gold. I wish Paphiopedilum did this.


----------



## southernbelle (Dec 1, 2020)

Phred said:


> And just to add another twist to the conversation... divisions of a plant are not always genetically identical. In the genus Hosta many of the plants registered each year are plants referred to as ‘Sports’. A ‘Sport’ is a mutation that occurs as a plant increases in numbers of eyes (growths). At a point the plant may produce an eye... leading to a new growth that is totally different from the original plant. The new growth can be different in many ways... color, solis or variegation, size of plant, size of leaf, leaf shape, texture, wavy or not, shiny or not etc. an example of one of my Hosta with a sport is below. The original plant is variegated and the sport is gold. I wish Paphiopedilum did this.View attachment 23603


Phred, interesting!! I've never seen this in Hostas, but I did have it happen in a Hybrid Tea Rose. A variety I grew, Color Magic, that is changing depths of pink in one flower had a particular bud eye develop a sport which was white with a light pink edge. I noticed the difference (pretty obvious) and mentioned it to someone in the American Rose Society who brought it to Jackson Perkins attention. We sent it to them and they grew it for a few years but it did not materialize into an exceptional flower, so was never marketed. However, this was not a division as the eye on your hosta produced. It took tissue grafting to grow this rose sport apart from the mother plant (as Hybrid Teas are grafted and don't divide). But, would sports not be more obvious genetic mutations (jumps if you will), versus minor changes over time in certain other things we've been discussing?


----------



## terryros (Dec 2, 2020)

I know that Orchids Limited, and probably many active breeders, has started using a chemical other than colchicine for the induction of polyploidy. This can be used on a germ cell cross or during the mericloning process. Sorry that I am not remembering the name, but it is safer (and maybe easier) to use. They are producing more tetraploid species and hybrids with some types of orchids. For example, I have a plant from a polyploid conversion (this one with colchicine) they did on a mating of two typical diploid Cattleya trianae. The buds are currently clearing the top of the sheath. I might get deformed flowers or something substantially larger and improved. If the future is tetraploid/polyploid, our standards for things will change. New hybrids using tetraploid species could be as good as many outstanding old complex classics that we can only obtain expensively through suspect divisions and mericlones. I think many of the outstanding species and hybrids in the past were spontaneously polyploid during natural or artificial breeding. Polyploidy was with us from the first outstanding species cultivars that were imported; there may now be a resurgence of polyploid species and hybrids. Some will prefer natural diploids. Others will want the larger, prettier flowers of polyploids. With current judging standards, I think polyploids will almost always win.


----------



## Phred (Dec 2, 2020)

southernbelle said:


> (as Hybrid Teas are grafted and don't divide). But, would sports not be more obvious genetic mutations (jumps if you will), versus minor changes over time in certain other things we've been discussing?


southernbelle... with woody plant material, and I assume this applies to roses as well, the mutation is called a 'Witches Broom'. Most oddball varieties of tree and shrub come from this kind of mutation. Someone notices a new type of growth that is interesting. Cuttings from the mutated growth are taken and, as with your rose, are grafted onto a hardy rootstock and grown on for sale or display. Not all are commercially viable though so many never make it into trade. An example would be the White Pine (Pinus strobus) and the numerous mutations that came from it. The mutations are called 'Cultivars'
Some commonly available P. strobus cultivars include:
P. strobus 'Nana' - Dwarf White Pine.
P. strobus 'Fastigiata' - Narrow upright growing White Pine.
P. strobus 'Pendula' - Weeping White Pine.


----------



## southernbelle (Dec 2, 2020)

Phred said:


> southernbelle... with woody plant material, and I assume this applies to roses as well, the mutation is called a 'Witches Broom'. Most oddball varieties of tree and shrub come from this kind of mutation. Someone notices a new type of growth that is interesting. Cuttings from the mutated growth are taken and, as with your rose, are grafted onto a hardy rootstock and grown on for sale or display. Not all are commercially viable though so many never make it into trade. An example would be the White Pine (Pinus strobus) and the numerous mutations that came from it. The mutations are called 'Cultivars'
> Some commonly available P. strobus cultivars include:
> P. strobus 'Nana' - Dwarf White Pine.
> P. strobus 'Fastigiata' - Narrow upright growing White Pine.
> P. strobus 'Pendula' - Weeping White Pine.


Interesting!


----------

