The latter part of the last century witnessed an unprecedented discovery of new Orchid species, exquisite by modern standards. One only has to look through the
Orchid Album and
Lindenia to see some of the clones (usually now lost to cultivation) portrayed during this dynamic period of Orchid discovery. The fascination with species, however, waned with the development of hybrids, particularly after 1900. In the last thirty years with increasing concern for conservation of orchid species in a world of diminishing habitats and expanding human populations, there has been a new appreciation for species and a few natural hybrids, particularly those lost to cultivation.
With the use of line breeding, orchid species are being perfected to match market demands. Note for instance, the wonderful clones of Laelia purpurata currently available. Most of these are the result of line breeding of selected clones. One would be hard pressed to find a clone in the wild of a quality matching the best of these.
So what is the problem with identification? Note how the extinct aurochs once native to Europe has given rise to virtually all of our cattle breeds. There is a similar story to be told of domesticated cats and dogs. Modern domesticated animals often look very different from their wild ancestry, and the same is happening with orchids. The Orchid Identification Center frequently receives flowers of line bred species with characteristics that take them out of the known definition of their wild counterparts. Sometimes with the
Laelia purpurata example we see an odd flower that looks "too good", with four large and four rudimentary pollinia. Since Laelia purpurata is known to produce only eight pollinia per flower, any reduction is good evidence of hybrid origin somewhere back in the lines. But Laelia purpurata is not the only problem. We are seeing dark forms of Cattleya mossiae and canary yellow forms of Vanda denisoniana that are just too good, but otherwise seem to be the species suggested by the owners of these plants. All we can really do with most of these is to give a provisional acceptance of the names as submitted.
There is a promising solution being developed---DNA fingerprinting. What is needed is a library of the gene sequences from many clones of parental species. The research is just now beginning at Selby Gardens (Marie Selby Botanical Gdns., Sarasota, Fl.). Dr. Norris Williams of University of Florida is now looking at several clones of Cattleya dowiana from Costa Rica and Colombia (often accepted as Cattleya aurea) and will compare a curious clone with odd smokey-lavender lip and the even more odd flowering time of November and December. This clone known as cultivar Blumen Insel has intrigued us for some time, as it may represent a mistake with a toothpick depositing the wrong pollinia! Williams will also compare a questionable dark purple flowered clone of Cattleya mossiae with a few known wild collected clones. Also known clones of Cattleya xhardyana will be compared with the parents, C. aurea and C warscewiczii.
Over the years we have collected examples of plants with identification problems, stemming from line breeding or natural hybridization, and so Selby is an appropriate place to initiate this project. We hope within two years to have working protocols to confirm or reject the names of at least a few line bred species. Meanwhile we must continue a system of acceptance or rejection of these plants based on our best knowledge and experience sometimes often involving several individuals. Yours truly is working with Dr. Williams to sample Maxillaria species for the purpose of improving the classification of this large group of cultivated orchids. These are exciting times ahead for Selby's research orchid collection!
