Hybrid Wish List

The issue is, some of those have been done and they look terrible. While they might meet your culture criteria, otherwise they are no improvement in the species aesthetically. I have some Neo x Phal and are not anything I would buy. Sedirea is a Phal now, but it might be worth it. However, breeding it with something in the deciduous section might've interesting. I doubt it would thrive in outdoor LA though. Phal x Sarc some are interesting but I think the inflorescence length if the Sarcochilus might be dominate in some that I've seen. Again, I would prefer whites in breeding that. Maybe spots. Either way, it's not something I would suspect would winter well on a patio even.

 

There was a speaker at the Ontario IPA talking about intergeneric Phalaenopsis. I don't think there are second generation intergeneric as they are sterile.

The reason I don't think its nice is the flower segments are reduced in size, the diameter is reduced. Spacing might improve because of the Phal. The spur is present as a nub.

I would rather grow Neofinetias.

I will look around in the greenhouse tomorrow and find the name of the guy doing that sort of breeding for you.

 

I remember seeing you post about creating this on the r/orchids sub. Very interesting concept! I had a chance to scan through your blog. I definitely think it's interesting to see how different hybrids turn out, and for economic reasons there are unquestionable benefits. Just looking at the success of Sharry Baby will tell you that easier to grow hybrids with desirable traits are popular.

The issue I have however is the idea you pose of using hybridization in conservation. Maybe it depends on your philosophy surrounding conservation, and what that means to you. I am not a conservational biologist, but I feel that there is some gravity to the idea of species that have been honed down through years and years of evolution. The philosophy of conservation, to me at least, is to document and protect the delicate interactions that have arisen as a result of this. As an example, the co-evolution of the long spurs in the angraecoids and the hawk moths just blows my mind. Orchids are so incredible in that way - they have been so finely tuned by nature, developing peculiar and fascinating traits that make them suitable for only very narrow niches. To me, that is precisely what makes them the most interesting, important, and also difficult to protect.

The dogma of evolution, as far as I understand in the most rudimentary sense, revolves around survival of the fittest. Generating super fit hybrids as a way to hedge against the forces that shape evolution might seem like a good idea, but what happens if the moths preferentially pollinate these earlier blooming, faster growing hybrids? Or if they grow so fast they crowd out the sun for 5 other species that could have occupied that spot? What if second generation hybrids between these man made plants and species generate sterile offspring? You will have effectively replaced what you're trying to conserve with what you've created. It's like conserving a forest by chopping it down and building metal trees, because they don't fall down as easily....or replacing a native meadow with dandelions because they grow better.

Obviously I don't really think a hybrid orchid is going to turn into the next dandelion scourge, nor do I think there's a truly serious threat of any hybrid. Nonetheless, I do think that hybridization should be kept within the realms of either the aesthetic, or the economical.

/source - rudimentary university level biology, random non-peer reviewed articles and my own thoughts only.

PS - super jealous of your SoCal location, climate, etc... I've been trying to get down there for years, but have only managed to move west and got stuck half way in the middle of the prairies aka the arctic tundra right now.

 

Many of the hybrids I would include on a wish list are old classic hybrids, but which are very hard to find now. Two examples:

Lc. Ecstacy 'Orchidglade' (I have been trying to find one of these for about 4 years or so; Grezaffi used to have them, sold his last division 2 hours before I called him!)
Lc. Summerland Girl 'Orchidglade' (Excellent waxy red Catt with a white & magenta lip)

@ Epiphyte, something you may want to consider, introducing a hybrid, or even an exotic species, into a place it is not native to does not increase biodiversity. It usually decreases biodiversity if the introduced plant/animal can out-compete native species for space and resources. Such introduction is also illegal in many places. I have seen a similar discussion on another orchid-related forum before, a couple years ago.

Some examples where introduced species have caused great ecological harm and loss of biodiversity: Dendrobium crumenatum introduced in Puerto Rico (out-completes many native orchid species for habitat); exotic orchids introduced in Hawaii (same problem as Puerto Rico); Mongoose introduced into Puerto Rico (snakes and lizards are a primary food, the Puerto Rican Boa, Epicrates inornatus, is endangered largely due to mongoose predation); Rabbits introduced in Australia (out-competed many native marsupials for food; combined with the introduction of dogs, house cats, etc., pushed many native animal species to extinction); Japanese knotweed introduced into North America (especially in wetland areas, has out-competed native wetland plants, including some orchids and carnivorous plants, resulting in a near monoculture of this weed in some wetlands); Kudzu and Chinese privet introduced into the southern United States (smother and out-compete native plants for space, sunlight, resulting in near monocultures in heavily infested areas). These are just a few well-known examples; there are many others.

 

Epiphyte,

Sterility is an issue. Say a wild vanda ends up getting pollinated with pollonia from a hybrid instead of it's respective species partner. The seed of this second generation cross may end up being sterile (e.g the hybrid-species hybrid is sterile). That wild vanda has now wasted energy and an entire season producing progeny that are dead ends. Furthermore, it has now been removed from being able to accept pollen from it's natural partner. You see this problem happening a lot with the GM crops, actually. The crops have been engineered to produce sterile offspring, but the problem is that pollen from these sterile crops blows into neighboring fields, contaminating wild type wheat. Farmers who harvest their wild wheat expecting to save seed for the next year end up getting screwed because their seed is now hybridized, and sterile.

Yes, it's entirely possible that a hybrid is more fit than a species. In fact, it could be more fit for multiple species, and that's the problem. You're destroying diversity by replacing 5 or 6 species (not necessarily just orchids - mosses, fungi, insects) that occupied a niche in balance, with one strong hybrid that takes up the resources.

Hybridization is actually a well-studied culprit of inducing species extinction.

I can sort of grasp what you're saying - basically you're looking at a desert and saying "hey, this place doesn't have enough plant life. Let's create super drought tolerant species and throw them in here, and viola! Biodiversity!" But that is not the way nature works. The relationships between the plants, animals, and weather have evolved over millions of years to create microniches, from the little hollow in the cacti, to the dew that condenses on the sand in the early morning. There are interactions there that you can't possibly understand, or even understand. (For example of the importance of one single native species to a niche, check out this amazing video).

As Catt Mandu mentioned, almost all human attempts at introducing alien species into an environment have failed spectacularly. Introducing hybrids into nature does not conserve anything. It just messes things up. There are people who devote their lives to studying a single niche environment so

Hopefully this makes sense, and I don't come across as being patronizing, but keep the hybrids in the gardens and greenhouses, and leave conservation to the pHDs. There's a reason people go to years of school for this - it's complicated!!

 

BTW, the term "hercuthermal" would not communicate much to a person that knows about communities of plants/animals and their environments (such as an ecologist, for example). A well-established term for organisms that can tolerate a wide temperature range is "eurythermal". It's opposite, "stenothermal", refers to organisms that can only tolerate a narrow temperature range.

 

This is a good discussion. However, you request evidence, and yet most of your arguments are based upon things "sounding likely" or "sounding probable." Given the multiple well studied instances of introduced species disrupting native environments, perhaps you could provide some insight as to why introducing a hybrid would somehow be less impactful?

I understand the concept of survival of the fittest. I have a biology degree, although admittedly not in this area. In one paragraph, you say "It's survival of the fittest and sterility is pretty much the opposite of fitness. Individuals that produce more offspring will outpace individuals that produce less offspring." and then in the next paragraph you say: "Regarding your argument of a hybrid being too fit...I just don't see how a super fit hybrid epiphytic orchid is going to replace 5 or 6 wild species." Doesn't the first part answer the second? Quite simply, a more fit hybrid will out-compete existing species. That's it.

In regards to specific studies, I am not an evolutionary biologist, so my extent of evidence and understanding doesn't go beyond reviews and meta analysis. However, this review might give some insight.

Some excerpts:
"There are many examples of the large populations of invading species swamping small populations of native species by hybridization, but in certain cases small populations of an invader can threaten native species that have much larger populations. This is the case with the invading Spartina alterniflora into the San Francisco Bay. It hybridizes with the native Spartina foliosa. The invader has a higher pollen output, and greater male fitness, than the native species and the hybrids and it occupy lower intertidal habitats. In time introgression will threaten the native species (36). Conversely, small populations of rare species can be threatened by hybridization in a number of ways (37), including infertility of the hybrids."

Feel free to consult the sources. I took the liberty to read source 37 and in case you can't access it, some excerpts:

"The growth rate of a population may be retarded by the production of hybrid seed, which is produced at the expense of conspecific seed."

"The numerical disadvantage of a rare species is compounded by the proliferation of fertile hybrids. The addition of these plants to a population containing two species
decreases the proportional representation of the rare species. This in turn results in a decline in the proportion of their progeny that are conspecific (pure). A rare outbreeding species may be predisposed to crossing with a congener if its population has a paucity of self-incompatibility (S) alleles. Such a condition severely limits the number and availability of potential conspecific mates, especially if incompatibility is under
sporophytic control (Byers & Meagher 1992). This in turn reduces conspecific seed-set."

"Hybridization would reduce the growth rate of parental
populations if hybrids competed with them for establishment
microsites and resources. The paucity of microsites

may be as important as the paucity of seeds in
limiting recruitment for a population (Eriksson & Ehrlen
1992). Experimental studies of competitive interference
between species and F 1 hybrids in Anigozanthos (Hot
per, 1978), Festuca (O'Brien et al. 1967), and Hordeum
(Norrington-Davies 1972) demonstrate that the growth
of "pure" individuals may be suppressed more by hybrids t
han by conspecifics. In the field this would translate
into lower survivorship and fecundity in the parental
populations. The exploitation of parental microsites
and competitive superiority of hybrids could lead to the
exclusion of a parental species, as in the case of Spartina
× townsendii (Huskins 1931). Other examples of
sterile hybrids spreading by vegetative reproduction to
the detriment of the parental species are discussed by
Grootjans et al. (1987)."


Hopefully that's sufficient evidence? Here is another powerpoint by Dr. Zach Peery (PHD in environmental science) that goes over some of the concepts of genetic extinction as a result of hybridization, with many many examples, including some that discuss the concept of natural hybridization, and whether it's a good or bad thing in the realm of conservation. Note that despite this, the consensus in conservational biology is removal of man made hybrids.

I think the bottom line is that you're confusing biodiversity with conservation.

Conservation, as I mentioned before, is about documenting, preserving, and protecting existing species and their interactions with each other and the environment. This is not something I am making up nor is it an opinion - that is what conservation is. I have never ever come across a scientific study showing the benefit of a hybrid in preserving an existing ecological system.

Speaking strictly on biodiversity, yes, filling a space with 100 different hybrids will result in a net increase in biodiversity. This is mathematics, and undeniable. But I fail to understand why this is a desirable thing, and also what it has to do with conservation.

If you're arguing for the involvement of hybrids in conservation because some hypothetical natural disaster might wipe out all the species, and hybrids will somehow 'save' the orchids, I think that's a long shot. I suppose it's theoretically plausible, but at that point there won't be anything to conserve anyway.

Finally, in regards to your examples of Hawaii, remember that Hawaii was a sterile pile of ash and rock that was colonized, and speciation happened afterwards. It's a completely different scenario from throwing something into a pre-established ecosystem. Darwin's finches, a famous example of speciation again, came to the Galapagos (another chain of sterile volcanic islands with relatively undeveloped ecosystems). There's a reason why these places are so unique and fragile - they were allowed to develop in isolation with limited introduction of new genetic material. Speciation occurred due to a high number of unoccupied niches, with limited resources, and few predators. Finches better at cracking nuts evolved thicker beaks, finches better at pecking out ants from logs evolved longer beaks, etc. Throw in a hybrid finch capable of surviving at -20 or +50, flies faster, reproduces earlier, and is capable of eating wood, leaves, ants, seeds...I guarantee you, it will outcompete all the other finch species within a decade.

 

Epiphyte, an example of a eurythermal plant would be the dandelion, It grows from Alaska and Canada, south to at least Florida. There is really not a need for a new word here; eurythermal will suffice.

Oh - BTW, the thread you provided the link to, on another orchid site, is the one I was thinking of.

 

I had a chance to read this, as well as the discussion on orchidboard.com. I think I have a better grasp of your position now - don't worry, you have conveyed it perfectly. You certainly have your mind set on this, even though you haven't based your arguments upon anything beyond your own deductions and fantasies. That's actually what this sounds like - a fantasy, shrouded in some pseudoscience.

I have supplied evidence that the general act of introducing alien species, whether it's animals, insects,or plants into the wild is harmful. You persistently request some exact specific study; an exact example of a specific species that will be replaced by an epiphytic orchid. That's like saying: "Pouring water on me makes me wet, and juice is also a liquid, but it's a different kind of liquid, so I won't believe that I'll get wet with juice until you PROVE it!" If you can't fathom by deduction how an introduced epiphyte could be similar to any introduced alien species, I'm sorry, I can't really help you. Feel free to go into the Florida everglades and start planting hybrid phalaenopsis on the trees next to the dendrophyllax. Enjoy.

Your motivations are incredibly skewed, and your lack of scientific understand of adaptation unfortunately shows through your statements. You paint yourself as some great ally of the orchid family, as if it's some sort of poor child that needs help. The orchid family is not a being. It doesn't care about anything. It doesn't have feelings or desires or motivations. You've made one of the most basic misunderstandings regarding evolution, thinking it has some purpose. It does not. It is a series of events that happen, like gravity, that just happens, and is happening now as we speak. Conservation is about preserving the environments where it happens, not inducing some artificial cambrian explosion. I sense a god complex.

Your view of what conservation is incredibly poorly aligned with what it actually means. Come to Canada in 500 years and see epiphytes hanging in the trees? Hell no. I have supplied the definition to you multiple times in every post, and yet you have persisted with your own mysterious invention of what the word means. Please inform yourself on the concepts of evolution, biodiversity, and conservation using some introductory texts rather than take soundbites of information without context to support your ideas.

Just because you like the idea of seeing hundreds of hybrids growing on every available surface does not mean that anyone else wants that, nor does it give anyone the right to disrupt pre-existing environments and ecosystems.

Would it be cool to have an encyclia that can survive a Canadian winter, that I can plant on the tree on my garden? Yes, I'd love that. Please, go breed a super hardy encyclia so I can plant it on my tree in my garden outside. Or an angraecoid. They're so pesky and annoying, with such specific cultural conditions. Please breed one that can survive -40 to +40, survive a fire, full sun to complete shade, and 0 humidity. I will be the first to buy one and plant it on my tree.

Does that mean I want to walk through our wild Canadian boreal forest and see hybrid phalaenopsis hanging off the branches? HELL NO. The thought of it is disgusting. I went to the Sierras and fell in love with the magestic trunks of the sequoias stretching up into the sky. Shoot me dead before I see some nasty hybrid dendrobium draped across it. I love nature as it has developed over thousands of years - whether it's the joshua trees in the desert, or the flat plains of the prairies. Keep your cambrian explosion to yourself and your garden please.

 

If I knew you put an orchid or Tillandsia purposefully outside of human habitation, I would willfully and maliciously tear it out.

Go ahead and do all the guerilla-epiphyte-scaping you want in your city confines. See if you can get some walkerianas to grow on some trees or find a spot you can introduce some kingianums or specioousums on some rocks near a fountain or something.

Keep it out of areas not inhabited though. I don't want to go backpacking and see a pile of shit that is an Encyclia struggling to survive and hosting a plague of rats in it though.

 

You're right - I'd better change my request, because I definitely don't have time to shoo away pollinators. Please make me a sterile hybrid capable of surviving the Canadian winter. Better? Let me know when it's ready.

I'm just being facetious (but then again, so were you)

Look, I'm done with this discussion. You're right - I am wasting my time, partly because clearly nothing is going to fix the strange twisted way you understand conservation and biodiversity, but mainly because I don't think you're really that big of a threat anyway. Remarkable how the outcome and reactions of this thread mirror exactly the one from orchidboard several years ago.

Fill LA with epiphytes - leave no tree untouched. Half the plants in LA are introduced species from Asia and Africa anyway. No one cares. I planted a Laelia anceps on my partner's magnolia in Culver City 3 years ago, it's in spike right now, quite pretty, and I love it. See? I'm helping you!

But if I ever find some rogue hybrid dendrobium in the wild forests, I will think of you, and then I will rip it out, just as many before me have done so with plants such as loosestrife, water hyacinth, periwinkle, etc.

Oh, and here's some evidence for you to chow down on while planning the next cambrian explosion.

Peace.

 

epiphyte, after a couple relatively brief posts on Wednesday and Thursday, I realized that you were the same person that I (as well as many others) tried to educate on on this topic a year + ago over on orchidboard.com (my user ID is Orchid Whisperer over there). As soon as I realized that you were the same person as epiphyte78 on that board, I realized that it was pointless to have a discussion with you. I see you have started another thread on orchidboard, same title as this one, also under the username epiphyte78,

The old thread that you linked to on orchidboard started with a discussion of Burmese pythons in the Everglades, including the suggestion that for some reason the leafless character of Dendrophylax lindenii should be bred out of the wild population in order to keep D. lindenii from being crushed into extinction by snakes. (OK, the rest of you, stop laughing . . . THIS IS SERIOUS!!!) I suspected, but was never sure, that you and the original poster on that thread were the same person. This was based on the fact that the original poster and you shared the same level of understanding of ecology, biodiversity, conservation, evolutionary biology, etc., which is to say, slightly less than my dog.

I am an environmental scientist by training and profession. I have seen the adverse effects of invasive species run amok first hand, with ill effects on woods, wetlands, crop land, etc. I have worked on crews that literally were ripping invasive plants out by the roots from park land. I have seen first-hand the effects of houseplants and landscaping plants such as Epipremnum aureum, Impatiens, Coleus, etc. colonizing what should have been pristine rain forest in the Caribbean National Forest. Believe me, I am 100% on board with DPfarr's sentiment; invasive plants, epiphytes or otherwise, ought to be ripped out from natural places where they do not belong.

As for your own back yard, garden or greenhouse, grow whatever you want. You want to hybridize a Neofinetia with a Phalaenopsis? Vanda? Dendrophylax? Goat? Be my guest. Make all the crosses you like, send the seeds and pay the flasking fee, raise the seedlings, see how they work out. MAKE WHATEVER HYBRID YOU LIKE - just keep it under controlled cultivation and out of the wild.

DPfarr and xmpraedicta have attempted to steer you on the right path. I have tried to do my little part too, to no avail. A sensible person would listen and say "gosh, I didn't know that, thanks for the information" and move on. Instead, you have persisted in posting inane pseudo-scientific babble. This has led me to the conclusion that you and I have one, and only one, thing in common: I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

Right after I post, my next action will be to immediately place you on my ignore list. I see no point in feeding the troll on this thread or future threads. Toodles, and I hope you have a nice life.