At some point, genetic engineering will make sharing traits from disjoint groups of orchids a reality. However, for now, this is not really a possibility as there are just a few too many financial and technological barriers preventing this from becoming a reality. Right now, genetic engineering is typically only economically viable for transferring a single well-understood gene from one organism to another. In terms of human guided intrageneric hybridization, these types of crosses are limited to genetically related groups of genera. Basically, the orchid family is divided into groups of similar genera (cattleya group, oncidium group, vanda group, etc) based on evolutionary relationships. Within these groups, the members tend to be genetically compatible. However, hybridization outside of these groups is impossible due to genetic incompatibility. So, there really is no chance of even intermediate hybridization between the groups. I know you were just using catts and phals as an example, but basically, all species in the cattleya alliance are in a sense equally incompatible with all species in the phal alliance. You can abstract that to any two groups, (i.e. all oncidium alliance plants are equally incompatible with all ladyslipper alliance species).

Yeah, they all look cute when they're sleeping! :) Seriously, puppyhood is *intense* and we're just now getting past the "I-wanna-die-young-so-I'm-gonna-chew-on-electric-wire" stage. Have fun with the new pup! And Teddy says "hello". As I'm writing this, she just abandoned a fresh beef bone so she could gnaw on the runner of the rocking chair. Puppies...

How is breeding a CKCS or a Doberman or a Golden Retriever any different than breeding for a cat that looks like a tiger? It is okay if it was done 50 to 100 years ago, but not now? The difference is that historically dogs were bred for a purpose and the breed evolved from that, not vice versa. Specific conditions in a particular country or area required a specific set of attributes for a dog to perform as a hunter in assisting his master in putting food on the table. For many people in many places the help of a good servicable hunting dog very often made the difference between a family having food or starving. A dog that helped hunt rabbits in a flat wooded terrain required a different structure than a dog that hunted badgers on rocky hillsides. Dogs that were physically better built for their specific task and terrain meant dogs that could hunt longer, faster, and with fewer injuries. Other breeds evolved from being bred to protect flock animals from very specific predators- yet others were developed specifically to perform a certain task like wagon pulling which requires a specific conformation. Many breeds were used to rid populated areas from human predators like wolves- a dog not physically suited to the task just wouldn't last long with such a powerful adversary- they needed special skills. And so on. Dogs around the world performed many different tasks for many different reasons, but in almost all cases they served to benefit mankind and make our lives easier for centuries long before being classified as a "breed". The Toy breeds in most cases are downsized versions of these older breeds- folks just chose the smaller ones as house pets and the breed evolved from that. Now once a breed wass established and we fast forward to current times, of course aesthetic considerations began to apply more and more. But for a dedicated breeder concerned only with further improving the breed, it is not pure aesthetics at all. It is a method of preserving those characteristics- both innate and external- that make a beloved breed what it is. If not for dedicated breeders many old breeds whose functions are no longer required in a modern society would have died out long ago, and many many of them have temperaments so special that losing them would have been a great shame. Cats are very different- they are bred purely for aesthetics, and with very few exceptions have not been developed to suit any purpose. Breeds are developed more with an eye towards commercial acceptance- something that looks odd or distinctive will sell better in a niche market than something that looks like an every day street cat. So I would say the largest distinction between cat breeds and dog breeds is that most dogs breeds were developed, or more correctly- evolved, to fill a need, while most cats breeds were developed more as whimsy. I see nothing particularly wrong with someone occasionally breeding a breed of cats that they love as long as homes are thoroughly screened and all pets spayed and neutered before leaving the breeder. I do draw a HUGE distinction between breeding to advance your breeding program via rigorous selection processes and selling the pets as opposed to breeding purely to sell kittens. Breeding for dollars is vile. With the state of shelters in this country I would expect anyone breeding anything to take a real and substantial interest in caring for the less fortunate animals. So in my view any cat breeder should also be heavily involved in trap and release programs, shelter support, public education and so on, just as I expect purebred dog breeders to be active in their own respective breed rescue programs.

Okay, I'll say this and duck and cover: We have been looking at Cavalier King Charles Spaniels to adopt from rescue because DH has just about melted anytime he sees one, and behaviorally, they are the dog for us. We are now being considered to adopt one I found at Petfinder that lives locally. So I spent last night going to different sites to learn more about the breed. I knew some of their health problems - heart murmurs (38% seriously when young, 100% by age 10) that can develop into valve disease and require heart surgery, luxating patellas (20 - 30%), hip dysplasia (11%). Heck - I've got all that myself! What I didn't know is that their cute, round little skulls are too small for their brains and they can develop a horridly painful condition that requires brain surgery - and the surgery does not always work. About HALF of CKCS have this! - although not usually to the extreme end. Then there is the problem where the dog will suddenly have paralysis of its hind legs from running or playing too hard. It goes away fairly quickly and the dog resumes its activity (usually). Luckily, this does not seem to be a life-threatening problem very often. They think it is a metabolic muscle problem, but they are not sure. It is unique to Cavs. The list goes on, and the hilarious thing is that I share a good number of the same problems! Like thyroiditis, stenotic nares, cataracts (30% have one eye disorder or another), white blood cell problems (50%). I guess I should be glad that I never reproduced! Then there are the ones I don't have: mucous plugs in the middle ear that are very painful and require surgery; Cushing's disease (prevalent), Diabetes (susceptible); dry eye syndrome (many); epilepsy (prevalent); curly or rough coat syndrome where the dog suffers very painful skin disease and dry eyes that are so bad that many think that the poor dogs should be killed at birth rather than suffer horribly it's whole life (half of all puppies born in Iceland in one recent two-year period had it, prevalence elsewhere is unknown); epilepsy (prevalent), eyelashes that scratch the cornea(very common), inward rolling eyelids (relatively high incidence) fly-catcher's syndrome (prevalent), congenital and progressive deafness...the list goes on. All of these are hereditary diseases - inherited. I just gotta say it - so which one is the Designer Dog? The purebred CKCS or some body's backyard mix? CKCS were created in the 1920s by getting the undesirable longer-nose puppies from the litters of the English Toy Spaniel. The English Toy was the surviving breed that was pictured in a lot of old paintings as a beautiful lapdog. Back when the paintings were done, the breed was not a pug-nosed dog like the English Toy Spaniel is today, though. So some people who wanted to recreate the look of the the dogs in the paintings bought and bred the unwanted longer-nosed English Toys and created a whole new breed and named it the Cavalier (from the name of one of the paintings) King Charles (King Charles II bred and loved the dogs) Spaniel. So, since someone did this in the past, it is now a "breed". I imagine that the dogs were so inbred in order to establish the breed that the genetic disorders just got more and more concentrated. The English Toy Spaniels are known to have a few of these disorders, but not in the same numbers as the Cavaliers do. Interesting factoid: the English Toy was created by MIXING the little spaniels of the paintings with Chinese dogs to get the pug face. Designer Dog, anyone? If it happened a hundred years ago, it is okay, but we can't do it anymore today? Because....why? Think about it. The smushy-faced English Toys that bred true (and consequently had a good mix of genes with the Chinese dogs) have FEWER genetic defects than the CKCS, that was created by breeding only the THROWBACK longer-nosed English Toys that did not meet the English Toy Spaniel's new breed standard. Does that not best explain how dog breeding works? Create a specific breed with a few original parent dogs and end up with concentrations of genetic malformations that seem to come with almost every dog! Look at the breeding chart in the link below. Only the A+ dogs are free of the three main genetic diseases. Yet it is okay to breed them with all but the worst dogs! You can still breed a CKCS who had a dam and sire that may or may not have had a heart valve murmur, who has a little bit of the horrible brain problem, and a skull that is too small with a perfectly healthy dog. Why? Obviously because there are not enough perfectly healthy dogs to use to breed healthy CKCS! Why, o why didn't somebody mix a little Brittany or English Springer Spaniel in there 50 years ago! So, that is my thinking on purebred genetics. It is fine if you are breeding a relatively healthy breed like the Brittany, but when you end up with what the poor CKCS have to endure, is it really worth it?