Crippling in Yellow Cattleya Hybrids
 

The June issue of ORCHIDS magazine carried an article by Ron Midgett, PhD, on crippling in yellow and art-shade Cattleya breeding. He offered that the believed cause then and now is C. dowiana var. rosita. Ken Roberts offers a different opinion in the August magazine in the "Letters" section up front. Speaking with a few noted growers of cattleyas, I was offered even other explanations. It would be interesting to hear what conclusions some of our readers might have reached!

Cattleya Crippling Revisited
 

Why call this crippling? Is it possible that the expression of C bicolor and C dowiana is what we see? One half of the DNA is bicolor and one half dowiana and what we see could be the normal expression of these genes. Also, polyploids are mentioned in the article and we know that expression of tetraploids and triploids sometimes results in thickened, enlarged, stronger colored flower parts. Additionally, dowiana has notoriously, poorly formed petals.

Crippling in yellow Cattleya hybrids
 

Could someone define exactly what is meant by crippling? I've only been growing orchids for about 2 yrs. and have never heard the term applied to orchids. Reading the article in Orchids magazine did not give me a clue... :confused:

Certainly a good point Joe. We see a lot of hybrids down here using V. Doctor Anek. They are colorful, large and round, but typically, they exhibit extra tissue along the midribs of the petals resulting in a characteristic ridge. Floral texture of these hybrids is also distinctive. No doubt, all of these problems are caused by genetics. I suppose it is juat a matter of semantics what you call it In this case Melissa, crippling refers to a deformity of the flowers resulting in extra tissue, twisting, color abberations and assymetry.

I hope Ken is around to answer my question. In his letter he mentioned going through the hybrid record, in Sanders as well as what had been written in The Orchid Review and other contemporaneous articles. My question to Ken is how trustworthy is that information? I remember Ed Wright saying how, when he was stationed in England during WWII, he visited Sanders (St Albans) and marveled that the 'registry' was scraps of paper contained in a shoebox until such a time that it was sorted and published. Additionally, rumor has it that some growers were deliberately less than forthcoming about their hybrids. Add to that the usual taxonomic uncertainties ('tis rosita, 'taint rosita) and how can one really "hang your hat" on anything? Not only that but on another list Ken showed some pictures of one of his dowianas that bloomed completely differently on flowers on the same stem.

Now, don't get me wrong. This sounds like I'm challenging Ken's conclusions but really I'm not. I think in my case 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'..... Over the years I've heard these stories. Online I read taxonomic arguments by people who certainly sound like thy know what they are talking about. But what do I know? So I'm asking the question. Ken, do you think you can trust the guys who wrote these articles? I mean, if you can't trust Hetherington who can you trust? I'd like to know how Ken came to judge the reliability of the older data, his thought processes. I mean, even today people go back and forth over species (and varieties) all the time, & they never agree. Who's to say they knew what they were talking about back then, much less that they knew what they were breeding with? Again, don't get me wrong. If we were speaking instead of writing this wouldn't sound so rude.

Ken Roberts was kind enough to allow me to post his answer to my question:

"Ms. Barrett,

Your questions posted on the AOS Orchid Forum were brought to my attention.

Ernest Hetherington is one of my long time friends, and his comment was that it was being talked about, not that it was a fact. He said further research needed to be done. None ever was that I can find. In Ernest's current condition I would not bother him with asking about it.

As to how good was the information that I used for the basis of the article's conclusions:

The Editor of the Orchid Review from 1893, until his very unexpected death in 1921, was Robert Allan Rolfe. He was a person that exhibited a most meticulous attention to detail and exhibited a great knowledge of orchids. He was one of the good guys! He was a self made man, having no formal education in plant sciences, prior to his employment at Kew. He became the preeminent orchid taxonomist of his day. When he started The Orchid Review he was not allowed, by Hooker, to even put his name on it. Only much later was he allow to do so. I consider him an impeachable source! Did he make mistakes sure, we all do, but that does not detract from the overall source or the validity of the information. The next Editor was Gurney Wilson who also produced the finest Orchid Periodical of its day, from 1906 to 1916, which included quality articles, slick paper (a rarity in that day), and full color pictures (unheard of in that day). Unfortunately, it did not last, I suspect due to the cost, it was titled: The Orchid World. Another gentleman of high reputation, who was thought so highly of that he was brought to the USA to act as the Chairman of Judges at the first AOS Orchid Show.

Sanders List of Orchid Hybrids of 1906 (the very first one) was predated by Hansen's The Orchid Hybrids of 1895. In sander's list what they then called varieties were listed, in Hansen they were not. However, in The Orchid Stud Book (1909 they were. The stud book was written by Rolfe and Charles Chamberlain Hurst, a geneticist at Kew. Hurst was the one that figured out the secret to white Cattleya breeding, i.e.. that there are two different types of white cattleyas. He also published numerous articles on the subject and was highly respected. Not withstanding what your friend said about the methodology of record keeping, being sloppy is not the same thing as misrepresenting the information. Were there people that lied about what they used to make a particular hybrid? yes, but most of those were sorted out later and corrected. You ask how that can be done? well, most were primary hybrids and their parentage can rather easily be identified if you know the species, which they did.

If you look in the chart in the article you will notice that in several instances you have two different 'varieties' of Cattleya dowiana listed as the parent for the same hybrid. First, this was the information provided by the exhibitor when these particular plants were exhibited and was only reported by the editor of The Orchid Review. Secondly, the reason for this could be that the hybrid was made twice, by different people, one using the aurea form, the other used the rosita form, and finally, it could be that peoples recollections were faulty.

I am a firm believer in Murphy's Law and Roberts' correlation to Murphy's Law, however, I believe in the people that produced the data and therefore I believe the data.

If you wish to publish this email in the Forum, you have my permission to do so.

Ken Roberts"

Thank you Ken for the informative answer. It gives a more complete view of your letter in 'Orchids'.

I don't know the source of the error, but I believe Ken meant to say he considered Robert Allen Rolfe to be unimpeachable.

I've thought about this for a couple of days and I'm not sure one can lay crippling in yellow hybrids at the feet of C. bicolor. It begs the question, does bicolor cripple in any other breeding program? I'm too inexperienced to know. [but I'm tenacious enough to ask around.]

There would seem to be a 'perfect storm' of genetic incompatibilites between both parents in breeding for yellows that doesn't occur in any other breeding program (greens, lavenders, whites). Perhaps even the extranuclear genetics contained in the ovum comes in to play. Who's to say?

But it's a good point: the myth surrounding C. dowiana hort var rosita is unsubstantiated and undeserved. It deserves a burial. In the battle between fact and legend the tendency to 'print the legend' comes into play. I fear the legend will out despite Ken's letter in 'Orchids'. I for one will take it with a grain of salt in the future. Which then leads me back to my original question of trust, *G*! Perhaps I shouldn't have let that pod of C Natalie Canipeli 'Moonshot' x C Malworth 'Orchidglade' go to waste. *G* Nah, crippling can still occur, no matter which parent is 'at fault'.

In a case of print the legend the AOS Homepage has an old article on influences in Cattleya breeding which restates the C dowiana/crippling factoid. I hope we are now all better informed, *G*.