question regarding peloricism

[tangers40]

i just obtained my first peloric orchid today, a pretty peach colored NoID phal. i wouldn't term it a complete peloric, as the secondary "lips" and throats aren't fully formed. they're sorta there, but not completely.

my question is....peloricism is a genetic defect, so that means the plant will always be peloric, correct? in other words, it's not going to bloom pelorically now and normally next year, right?

i'd never even seen a peloric orchid in person until today. went to a grocery store that usually has some wonderful orchids for sale. they only had a few this time, maybe 6 total, but one of them was my peloric beauty. i had been given a gift card to that store for xmas, so i used it hopefully it'll survive the cold on the way home tomorrow so i can at least get a pic before it drops its blooms. it reminds me of a cym...very interesting!

[patticake]

The form is genetic. It should stay that way for life. I LOVE pelorics, too! This one is in bloom for me now. I found it among all the common ones at a WalMarts, no less! Good luck with your baby! A photo would be sweet!

[Stelios]

well... sorry if this looks like highjacking the thread...
i don't know a lot about peloric phals, other than it is genetic... however i just created a thread (possibly the strangest phal) that also has to do with a peloric phal and it is defying the genetics explanation in some way. So i am really confused as well.

Any experts on peloric phals would be more than welcome to write a short article.

[rcb]

tangers - yes perloric is genetic, but sometimes it is a temporary genetic thing.

Here's an article on it.

Cell Research - Transcription analysis of peloric mutants of Phalaenopsis orchids derived from tissue culture

[Ray]

By the way, the term is either peloria or pelorism

[phalaephila]

Well, my experience is... No. Pelorism is not a forever thing. I purchased this orchid (without peloria) almost five years ago. The main plant suffered crown rot, but put up a basal growth, without a pause in its bloom cycle. The flowers from that point on (in 2006) showed some peloria. This year, the phal has two spikes. One has peloric flowers, and the other has flowers equal to the original blooming. Both spikes are growing from the same basal growth that started in 2005. Please see attached photos. This is a noid plant.

Jeanne

[lmartiny]

I'm going to keep my eye out for one of those.

[JLu]

Pelorism can be either temporary or permanent. It's certainly a genetic fault. Sometimes it's atrociously hideous and sometimes is accepted as a positive trait.

Examples of generally accepted cases include "flammea" Cattleyas and the Phalaenopsis (syn. Doritis) pulcherrima (hv. champornensis). Many times it's acceptance is debatable. Some purists feel it should never be judged because it's a genetic mistake. Others feel that it can be judged if attractive and the ugly ones should be bucketed. Unfortunately, there is no general agreement on which is which.

I have to admit that I received an HCC on a Phal pulcherrima (hv. champornensis).
In general, I do not like the trait and I especially don't like it when many lip features e.g. large side lobes and callus are carried to the petals. That's just my opinion. Others have their own opinions.

[tangers40]

Originally Posted by Stelios

well... sorry if this looks like highjacking the thread...
i don't know a lot about peloric phals, other than it is genetic... however i just created a thread (possibly the strangest phal) that also has to do with a peloric phal and it is defying the genetics explanation in some way. So i am really confused as well.

Any experts on peloric phals would be more than welcome to write a short article.

not hijacking at all. i saw your thread....and that is definitely wacky! i obviously don't know much about it either....hence this next quote lmao!

Originally Posted by Ray

By the way, the term is either peloria or pelorism

errr....oops. i'm good at making up words, ya know. REALLY shows my lack of knowlege. that's why i love this board. it makes me feel smarter when i'm done reading.

Originally Posted by phalaephila

Well, my experience is... No. Pelorism is not a forever thing. I purchased this orchid (without peloria) almost five years ago. The main plant suffered crown rot, but put up a basal growth, without a pause in its bloom cycle. The flowers from that point on (in 2006) showed some peloria. This year, the phal has two spikes. One has peloric flowers, and the other has flowers equal to the original blooming. Both spikes are growing from the same basal growth that started in 2005. Please see attached photos. This is a noid plant.

seems you have the same sort of thing stelios has, which totally boggles my mind. now knowing that peloria (hehe, see? i learned something!) is actually genetic and not the result of care conditions or whatnot, it seems odd to me that half the plant's flowers would be peloric (i.e. genetically different) and half wouldn't be. shouldn't each spike have the same genes? or is a plant's flower like an animal's gonad in which it only has 1/2 the gene number and may or may not carry a certain characteristic? eesh, good thing i'm not in school to study genetics. i'm confused already.

[tangers40]

Originally Posted by JLu

Pelorism can be either temporary or permanent. It's certainly a genetic fault. Sometimes it's atrociously hideous and sometimes is accepted as a positive trait.

In general, I do not like the trait and I especially don't like it when many lip features e.g. large side lobes and callus are carried to the petals. That's just my opinion. Others have their own opinions.

i've found i like the trait, particularly in phals, simply because it's "different" than normal. this plant i just got...i've seen about a million of the same coloration all over everywhere, but this one was different.

seems i've always gone after things that are a little different. i picked up a little plakat betta boy at the store once who had a permanent notch in one of his fins, passing over what was in all likelyhood his brother right next to him who had pristine "conformational" fins. the notchy boy i got has something a little special about him. he could never be judged either because of his fault, and others in the store buying bettas may have passed on him because he didn't look "right". but he's a turd and i love him to death. i think the difference made him spunkier. hopefully the same holds true for my "different" phal.

oh yes, and i'll get some pics of it tonight. just got home a minute ago and some of the other 'chids need attention lol.

[kmarch]

I'm glad JLu added the bit about peloricism not necessarily being a defect. Peloricism does occur naturally in species. I don't consider it to be a defect. I also agree with him that sometimes peloricism is beautiful and sometimes it is butt-ugly. As a judge, I approach peloric orchids the same as any other orchid. Are it's petals well formed? proportionate to the rest fo the flower? if marked do they bear clear and pleasing markings and colours? etc., etc. Some of my judges immediately dissmiss any peloric orchid as they veiw it as a deformity. I believe this view is changing though and is not held by most judges I know.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by rcb

tangers - yes perloric is genetic, but sometimes it is a temporary genetic thing.

Here's an article on it.

Cell Research - Transcription analysis of peloric mutants of Phalaenopsis orchids derived from tissue culture

I guess you could argue about whether the quality of the experimental design affected the results of Chen study but I find the list of genes that show altered expression intriguing. The transience and lack of heritability associated with many pelorisms makes a lot more sense when you abondon the usual dogma of gene mutations causing peloria and instead consider whether the structure of the genes might be changed without a change in the gene sequence itself.