Interesting topic, I had a similar question but I guess you beat me to it :) I would like to add that it is not the entire plant that is considered dominant or recessive. Rather, it is each individual quality of the plant that is controlled by its genetic make up. Color, shape, plant size, etc, each have a set of controller genes that determine the plant's characteristics. When crossing plants, the parent's controller genes will line up and the "fight for dominance" begins. :) With seed crosses, each one of the thousands of seeds could potentially have a unique outcome of this fight for dominance. In one offspring, parent A's petal size could have dominated. But in another offspring, it could have been parent B's petal size that won. It is the breeder's hope that among these thousands of unique combinations, there will be at least one that stands out that they can consider as the final stage of breeding, or continue to use that in further crosses. Going with what Arthurm and cjwatson have stated that Enc. plicata appears to have been used in multiple crosses already, it indicates that the breeders are trying to get something desirable from this plant. Maybe they want it to contribute its flower count, or perhaps the shape of the inflorescence. I dont think there is any way of identifying orchids and indicate what traits they will impart on a cross with any level of certainty. Rather, we can only hope that it imparts the traits that we are looking for on some of the offspring - and discard the rest. We cannot say that "If orchid X is crossed with orchid Y, then parent X will always impart its color and flower size to the offspring". Given the genetic rock-paper-scissors situation, this might only be true part of the time.

Sorry Matt, I misunderstood your "zero results" remark. There are a lot of cvs. that seem like they might make good parents, yet when you run a search for hybrids made with them, you come up empty. There can be several reasons for this: a) the thought never occurred to anybody before you, b) it occurred to them but they didn't have a good match blooming at the same time, c) it occurred to them, they had a good match, but the plant did not cooperate (turned out to be sterile, unreceptive, a selfer, etc.), d) it occurred to them, they had a match and the plant cooperated but it didn't actually produce anything worth keeping, or e) all of the stars lined up BUT they just never got around to registering it and/or submitting a photo to FCBS. Just because something is not on there doesn't mean it wouldn't make a good parent. Rather than to repeat my little rant about @#%&! Braz-el one more time, see the link below for a recap. Suffice it to say that if the plant tagged Braz-el is the same clone as the one labelled "Brazel species" in Zaghini's book (which it is SUPPOSED to be, but I've seen at least one other photo claiming to be that which lacked marmoration), then it is absolutely correia-araujoi. The clone pictured in Shane's photo has been IDed as such by the BIC (Bromeliad Identification Center). I don't know how much more definitive you can get than that. I agree with Andrew that c-a will not accept its own pollen, but if you have two or more different clones of it you can cross them. The jury is still out on whether c-a is a johannis hybid or not. Harry Luther first said yes, it is a natural hybrid with marmorata, but now says no, it's actually just another form of johannis. I'm still clinging to the natural hybrid theory, as it makes more sense to me, but whichever is right, it is almost certainly closely allied to johannis. As for johannis being a self-pollinator: well, yes and no, but mostly no. What I mean by that is that if you don't do anything to it, it won't self. At least mine doesn't. I have once or twice attempted to get self seed from it by hand pollinating it with its own pollen, and I did get one or two berries, but most didn't set up. The resulting plants didn't show evidence of having got anybody else's genes in them, so I am assuming it is not self-infertile, but you really have to work at it. It's not going to do it without help, so I wouldn't worry about it. More problematic are the teeny tiny flowers that often don't want to open. Oddly enough, cv. DeRolf has much bigger flowers that open wider, I have no idea why. Hannibal Lecter is another in-betweener. Sometimes it will set seed without being intentionally pollinated, but very often it won't. You do have to be aware that it is self-compatible, and that if it hasn't been emasculated before the pollen is ripe there will likely be a few seedlings in your grex that have gotten their own pollen, but that won't keep it from accepting outside pollen too. If you cross it with something fairly different from itself, you should be able to tell pretty easily which ones are the selfs.

John, Good question. I've been trying to determine if there is some kind of pattern in my own seedlings. So far, I'd have to agree with Jan - anything seems possible. For instance...I have a cross MISTER LUCKY (pod parent) X SO MANY STARS (pollen parent). All the seedlings that have bloomed so far seem to have inherited their form from SO MANY STARS. The color has been mostly a blend of the two...but not always. Here is an example - MISTER LUCKY X SO MANY STARS #1 MISTER LUCKY X SO MANY STARS #2 I think they look like siblings...just different colors. Occasionally, I am dumbfounded. This next cross doesn't seem possible. Since I am obsessively careful about marking and collecting seeds, I have decided that an insect had a hand in this next cross. Both of these seedlings were marked ED BROWN X HEARTS OF FIRE. It's not just a color difference, it's the form, the foliage, the size and the edge difference that make me think the yellow seedling had different pollen. All the other seedlings from this cross look like a variation of the red one (which is what I expected). ED BROWN X HEARTS OF FIRE (red in back and yellow in front) Weird, huh? Anyway, enjoy your seedlings and if you figure out a pattern be sure and let us know! Kathy

From a genetic viewpoint to distinguish whether the pod parent contributes more to a characteristic than the pollen parent requires that reciprocal crosses are made (A X B and B X A) and a large number of offspring are grown (in a randomized layout) and measurements taken and analyzed. A significant difference between the two F1s, AB versus BA, indicates (usually) a maternal effect. In most species chloroplasts (that make plant food) and mitochondria (that metabolize the food to provide energy) come from the pod parent only (but not all species, in some species the pollen parent contributes these solely or in others both parents contribute them). And both chloroplasts (and other plastids) and mitochondria have their own genes (DNA). They both reproduce just like plant cells. So both can have genetic variability and can differ between plants. That is one way offspring can have different characteristics that depend on the pod parent - because different pod parents may have different chloroplasts or mitochondria. Another way that offspring can differ based on the pod parent is due to the large contribution made by the pod parent to the seed. The seed affects the growth and characteristics of the offspring. In particular, the environment that the pod parent experiences can affect the characteristics the seedlings show. And such effects can last at least several generations. In some species these environmental effects may also influence the pollen and thus there can be a paternal difference present in the offspring. In practice most daylily hybridizers have found few if any reciprocal differences and typically are not concerned about which direction a cross is made other than with regard to pod and pollen fertility.