Crippling in Yellow Cattleya Hybrids

[Graphicgreg]

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.

[K Barrett]

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.

[K Barrett]

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'.

[raybark]

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