Nina Rach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spaketh thusly:
Does anyone on this list happen
to be in the field of orchid epigenetics?
I've been
known to make the occasional Frankenplant. They're to make the world
better, mind you, but we're working on that, too. Unfortunately, we're
still nowhere near the beast in "Minority Report." Pity.
Wonderful shades of blue indeed.
There's a new book out by
Blackwell on "PLANT EPIGENETICS," by Peter Meyer . It seems to
me that this sort of research would wreak havoc with our judging
systems.
A brief
definition for the Teeming Millions: Epigenetics consists of factors that
change the phenotype (i.e., the plant you see in front of you) without
changes in the genotype (the ucky DNA parts that requires enzymes and
test tubes and mysterious companies that end in -tech).
"Epigenetic modifications
are stable but potentially reversible alterations in gene _expression
that occur without permanent changes in DNA sequence. Recent years have
seen a dramatic increase of research activity in this area. This is the
first volume to provide an overview of our current knowledge of
epigenetic mechanisms in plants. It is directed at researchers and
professionals working in plant molecular genetics, developmental biology
and biochemistry, and will provide a point of entry to the detailed
literature."
I shall
now play Devil's Advocate. Those that know me probably won't be able to
tell the difference.
Just to
channel the ghost of Guido for a little bit, let's take a step back and
query as to the veracity of naming with respect to judging, shall we? If
my blissful ignorance of the judging system is correct, little proof is
required with the submission of a plant for judging in order to determine
the claims of parentage. And yes, yes- all the king's horses and all the
king's men hem and haw over the parentage and the gross morphology, but-
really, now. This is "quack like a duck, look like a duck"
technology with a plant family of 25,000+ species and hundreds of
thousands of hybrids. Hence, the chaos with Paphiopedilum
rothschildsianum, Paphiopedilum sanderianum, and Paph. Prince Edward of
York- just to throw around some names.
If my
ignorance can be extended well beyond the springboard over the deep end
of the pool, I seem to recall "improvements" in various
odontoglossum species that involved hybridization of supposedly pure
parents, and that a few RHS hybrids are registered from way the heck back
when with one or both parents missing. And let's don't forget that there
is no requirement to sterilize the "pod" [sic] parent of its
pollen when performing a cross, which could ultimately produce a selfing
instead of an outcross. Or the occasional lab mix-up, label mix-up, or
any one of a number of transcription error anywhere along the line. This
is all just to name a few potential errors.
Worrying
about epigenetic changes in this context is akin to worrying whether the
piano playing on the deck of the Titanic while it sinks is going to get
wet. Right now, we can't even guarantee the label is correct; perhaps
some day there will be some phylotyping techniques where we can say,
"Yup. That's a Paphiopedilum chamberlainianum, same as the label
says." But that's a long way off**. Look to see it in the AKC long
before you see it in plants. We can start to raise the red flags around
about the time we're able to crack nuts like the seed propagation of
Nepenthes clipeata and some single-gender cycads with some clever
gender-bending.
Maybe
you'd like to see some 1/2" tall nobile dendrobiums flowering out
without the years of waiting? No problem.
Or-
"Pass the
putrescine aminopropyltransferase.
I'll make that Polyrrhiza lindenii flower if I have to throw half the
CRC*** at it!"
In
closing, I'd like to say- make sure your hate mail is run through the
spell checker first, would you? I *do* predict pedantic proselytization
from this posting.
** Excepting the prestigious US Fish and Wildlife Service's forensics
lab. Valid only in the US, Puerto Rico, and territories. Offer applies
only to Paphiopedilum vietnamense and allied species. Offer not good in
conjunction with amplified fragment length polymorphism. This offer
expires 12/31/2006, or whenever the statute of limitations runs out on a
nude violation of the Lacey Act, whichever comes later. Not responsible
for false arrest, errors, typos, Gitmo hospitality tours, omissions, or
spectacularly ignorant statements of fact. This offer may not be combined
with any other federal penalties or sentences concurrently run with
existing convictions for Crimes Against Humanity.
*** CRC: The Chemical Rubber Company's handbook. Useful as a doorstop,
backstop at the rifle range, or assaulting slovenly chemistry graduate
students. Currently in the 80-something edition. Trivia: Older editions
tell you how to mend microscope reticules with spider silk and candle
soot.
Cheers,
-AJHicks
Chandler,
AZ
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/2005
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
orchids@orchidguide.com
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
