Skip navigation.
Home

Phalaenopsis Valentinii

Phalaenopsis Valentinii

Name edit as per RHS, original submission as Phalaenopsis valentinii (natural hybrid)
Please read comments below for full story about this plant.

Phalaenopsis Valentinii

Vote Result

----------
Score: 0.0, Votes: 0

Phalaenopsis

Love these, (not often seen) Phalaenopsis species.
bernabu

bernabu

Strange one!!!!!

Not sure what to do with this name, strange one.

-------------------------------
Phalaenopsis valentinii Rchb.f., Gard. Chron., n.s., 20: 262 (1883).
This name is unplaced.

Distribution: 42 MLY
Accepted Name: Unplaced Name
--------------------------------

Orchids of Malaya have it listed as a natural hybrid between Phal. violacea and cornu-cervi http://www.orchidenthusia.com/english/gallery_p2.htm

Bill

Phal

Both P.violacea and P.cornu-cervi are variable. I have searched and come to the same conclusion as you Bill. I think in a case like this one it is normal to show the name as: Phalaenopsis x valentina. (natural cross or unconfirmed or unresolved cross).
bernabu

bernabu

Khairimhd

This could seem tricky but I think I have worked out a solution for listing your plant correctly, there is no problem with the plant, it is the real article.

Phal. Valentinii has Horticultural recognition in 1959 by RHS for hybrid registrations.

Phal. x valentinii does not have Botanical recognition by The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, World Checklist of Monocotyledons.

As you know Khairimhd we validate all submissions using RHS for hybrids and the Monocot List for species.

We can not list your plant as Phal. x valentinii in the heading as per our policy but we can list your plant as Phal. Valentinii (RHS) and then list it as Phal. x valentinii in the body field. (exactly the same as we get around Kew (Monocot List) wiping out most of the varietal names)

How does that sound to you Khairimhd.

Bill

Phalaenopsis sp.

We could always list it as Phalaenopsis sp. for now in the 'Title' and then in the 'Body' List it as Phalaenopsis valentinii with reasons for that stated as per the species name listing policy.

and then Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Agreed!

Bill, I agreed with you . Just let the orchidsonline distribute TRUE info to orchidaholic.

it is listed

The name is listed with a cited distribution....sure it's designated as unplaced at this time...but it's listed so why not use it?

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Yes it is listed

Yes it is listed but not listed as an ACCEPTED NAME.

Bill

my other solution

Ok. so lets go with my other solution maybe?

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Phal. Valentinii

Wellsy, your other solution, would that be THE FINAL SOLUTION??

If we list it as Phal. species unknown it will be lost in the book page and no one will find it, not picked up by Google.

If we list it as Phal. Valentinii (RHS) there is no problem finding it, upper or lower case 'V' makes no difference to Google search.

Bill

it will search very well

If we list it as Phalaenopsis sp. and then list it as Phalaenopsis valentini in the body with an explaination of what the reasons for this are it will search very well by both google and our own search engine.

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Don't think so

If we listed this plant as Phalaenopsis species, that would be incorrect as it is not an accepted species and would allow for future corruption of the Website. We only list accepted species as per the Monocot List.

I will edit this plant to Phal. Valentinii (RHS Horticultural Recognition, 1959) as agreed by Khairimhd.

Bill

need to determine the plants origins

If the plant originated as a manmade hybrid (from a lab) then it is valid to call it Phalaenopsis Valentinii. If however the plant originated as a natural hybrid (as we suspect) then it is incorrect to label it as Phalaenopsis Valentinii. I think we need to determine the plants origins prior to settling this debate.

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

dumb question

How long does it take for a naturally occurring hybrid to become a spieces in it's own right?

mutation as well

No that is a very good question indeed buckie....

I agree with laroche7 but I also think it is possible that a mutation of a certain species can produce new species by becoming more suited to a certain niche environment than the original. This mutation then also becomes stable over time.

NOTE: The mutation carries different genes than the original species.

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Dead wrong

Sorry Wellsy, this can't happen, it's against the laws of nature as we know it.

Genes of a species can mutate for adaption to a certain niche and that is how we get sub species of particular species. Also mutant genes is what gives us colour variants and differing size of plants.

This little NOTE of yours " NOTE: The mutation carries different genes than the original species." is a beauty!!!!
Genes don't make genes so where would these different genes have come from, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?????

Bill

I am quite confident

Bill I am quite confident that in fact it is you that is wrong in this case.

My understanding of mutation is this....
When a plant mutates and spreads it's mutated genes via a group of seedlings, it is the genes in that group that have in fact 'changed' in this mutation process. If (by natural selection) this 'change' is in some way beneficial to a group of mutants (ie: it better equips its fellow mutants to fill some niche) then this tribe of mutated species will continue to prosper and cross pollinate both within and outside that group.

If and when these changes ever stabilize into a discernable/definable group then botanists would be debating the existance of a newly discovered species.

As further background to this view I draw your attention to the below.

"In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations, which are not transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually (in cases where flower buds develop in somatically mutated parts of plants). A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation. The source of the mutation is unrelated to the consequence, although the consequences are related to which cells are affected.

Mutations create variation within the gene pool. Less favorable (or deleterious) mutations can be reduced in frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) mutations may accumulate and result in adaptive evolutionary changes. For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population."

from "Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

More genetics

How can I be wrong when you are agreeing with what I have said all along in your para.2 and 6.

Para.2 is how we get sub species, the genes determine what species it is, mutation of those existing genes creates the sub species (as you said) "it better equips its fellow mutants to fill some niche"

Para.6 is your butterfly example of colour mutation, same thing, the genes are still the same except for the colour gene mutation. You need to understand that the colour gene that has mutated is the same gene as the original gene for that species.

My little example - you have a black rat, it breeds 10 times all black offspring, 11th breeding the colour gene mutates and it produces white offspring. The genes have not changed, white or black, it's still the same dirty rat, same as your butterfly example.

Your para.5 and reading the link to Wikipedia/Mutation, well that is scary stuff!!!! It has more to do with Genetic Engineering (GM grain crops), I'm not going into that mine field.

I would like to suggest that you read these two links,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar_colour_genetics

I liked the budgie link, bred them years ago and didn't have a clue about this type of stuff.

Bill

ummm

ummm....You said "Dead Wrong" A quote from yours above

"This little NOTE of yours " NOTE: The mutation carries different genes than the original species." is a beauty!!!!
Genes don't make genes so where would these different genes have come from, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION?????

Bill"

So.....where would these different genes have come from, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION????? -No

Mutation -Yes

PS: I already posted the less technical evolution link below as well....budgies? we were talking about plants?

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

manmade?

I note you have edited the title Bill.

Has Khairimhd gotten back confirming it is a manmade hybrid?

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Interesting quote!

I remember having a conversation with Phil Spence, one day. We were talking about the merits, and pros and cons of natural hybrids versus species. When Phil asked me,"What is a species anyway?", and I was lost for words for a moment, when he replied," A species, is only a natural hybrid, that had stabilised."
This could add some fire to the argument!
Laroche

When I went to school

I was taught basic biology, a species carried one set of genes and a hybrid can carry two or more sets of genes, the books that govern all living organisms must have been re-written.

Old Bill

Correct me if I'm wrong

Correct me if I'm wrong Bill. I believe that the hybrid plant does not carry two separate sets of genes. It carries a combined set which is the sum of the two parents handed down genes.

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy

Mostly right

A hybrid has one set of genes. I never said it had two sets of genes. When I said "a hybrid can carry two or more sets of genes," that is the correct terminology for inheriting genes from both parents.

Your second part is almost right, a hybrids genes are the sum of both parents but you forgot to divide the sum by two.

Bill

I know Wellsy's right!

Any plant with one set of chomosome's would be regarded as what we call 2N. A double set of chomosome's would be a 4N. No plant, hybrid or species, would have a 'double' the chomosome's, only a combination of what it had inherited from the parents. I think the school books have changed a bit, since those early years!
Laroche

What part????

Laroche, I can't work out what part you know Wellsy is right about, we are talking about genes, you are talking chromosomes and ploidy.

You are obviously lost in a sea of confusion.

Bill

less technical explanation

This has a less technical explanation than the above quoted.....

"Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. An organism inherits features (called traits) from its parents through genes. Changes (called mutations) in these genes can produce a new trait in the offspring of an organism. If a new trait makes these offspring better suited to their environment, they will be more successful at surviving and reproducing. This process is called natural selection, and it causes useful traits to become more common. Over many generations, a population can acquire so many new traits that it becomes a new species."

Introduction to evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards wellsy

Regards wellsy