John, If you are interested in research, Vanda Miss Joaquim is a good orchid to start with since it is, by a long long way, the most-documented and most-discussed orchid on this planet. The article you mentioned as being "of mixed value":
http://www.humanflowerproject.com/index.php/weblog/comments/507 seems to me to be a fair summary of the arguments put forward by the two groups who have recently published their opinions on the origin of Vanda Miss J. Each group is totally convinced that they are correct, and by now both groups are deeply entrenched in their positions. If you want to research further, I'd suggest you start with the following: a) "Biology of Vanda Miss Joaquim", by Hew, Yam and Arditti, Singapore University Press, 2002. b) Malayan Orchid Review Volume 33 (1999), pps 49-53 for an article by Tim Yam on the parentage of Vanda Miss J. This article would answer one of your questions because it discusses (and illustrates) several of the forms of Vanda Miss Joaquim and their parentage. At the simplest level, the parents are Papilionanthe teres and P. hookeriana, but each of these species exists in different varieties, and crossing these varieties results in strikingly different forms of Vanda Miss J. c) Malayan Orchid Review Volume 34 (2000), pps 70-73 for the article by Nadia Wright. d) Malayan Orchid Review Volume 38 (2004), pps 86-107 for the (series of) articles presenting the different points of view summarised on the website you mentioned. e) Malayan Orchid Review Volume 39 (2005), p 49 for a final word from Nadia Wright. On the website you mentioned, Joe Arditti's second comment makes great play on the relative scientific credentials of Mr Arditti and Ms Wright. Joe is correct when he says that "Both our book and the peer reviewed publication can be found in the libraries of many major universities in the US and elsewhere. These libraries will most probably not acquire Ms Wright's magnum opus because libraries do not usually purchase books which are self published or published by vanity presses. Such books do not command academic and scholarly respect and credibility since the assumption is that if they were worthwhile, they would have been published by a major and reputable peer reviewed publisher" What Joe didn't mention is that opinions expressed in a peer-reviewed publication are not necessarily correct; all the peer-review bit means is that other academics have read the opinions and think they are worthy of publication, thus allowing the reader to decide on the merits of the case. The debate over the natural origin vs artificial origin of Vanda Miss J. is all about opinions. There is no way of settling the argument because neither side can ever prove they are right, or that the opposite side is wrong. If you enjoy a good barney, then this one is a corker. Feel free to wade in. Cheers, Peter O'Byrne Still in Singapore _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
