The implication of the dark pink-flowering Sparaxis photo posted below a title of "Virus" is that a virus is known to have caused the pattern seen on the petals in the photos and that this pattern represents a known symptom of viral infection. I do not believe this is the case. Finding a virus does not establish cause and effect, and is clearly not a definitive diagnosis for the cause of the observed color pattern. Many, if not most, plants are infected with viruses with no visible symptoms, as Mary Sue admits to finding out for herself. To correctly diagnose what is going on with this Sparaxis flower, the next logical step would have been to attempt to infect other Sparaxis and/or closely related genera to see if one can replicate the same pattern of speckled petals in a previously uninfected plant. Transposable elements are not transmissible. Also, one could attempt to grow out seeds from this plant. If the resulting seed grown plants also exhibited this trait, then that would strongly rule out virus. However, if no seed-grown plants exhibit this trait, neither possible cause is ruled out since we know nothing about the genetics of this hypothetical tranposon. In this instance, I think the cause is far more likely to be a transposon than virus for four reasons: 1. The margins of the white sectors seem fairly well defined, not diffuse as is typical of viral infection, although this is difficult to say conclusively given the photo's limited focus. 2. The sectors seem to follow the developmental pattern within each petal as if the pigment machinery were turned off and back on very early during development along dividing cell lines. 3. The white sectors are white and not light pink, as if a transposon is completely turning off all anthocyanin production. A virus doesn't usually completely turn off all pigment production and would probably create lighter pink areas of varying intensity. 4. There are known, identified examples of transposons affecting petal color patterns which resemble the pattern seen with this Sparaxis flower. I think this is an interesting photo but posting it under a title of "Virus" adds to the confusion encountered by home gardeners seeking answers and may lead someone to needlessly destroy a wonderful new cultivar. I recommend its removal from the "Virus" page. Nathan At 04:38 PM 4/7/2014, you wrote: >Many years ago I sent in some bulbs to a lab in Sacramento to test >them for virus. My experience proved that you can't tell for sure >whether something that looks virused is virused. Some things I sent >in that looked virused were and some were not. Some I sent in that >didn't look virused were. Since most people don't wish to take the >trouble to do this, it seems safer just to toss plants that are >suspect even if you end up throwing out something that is suffering >from nutrient deficiencies. But it is not so easy if the plant is >symptomless. I sent in Sparaxis I had purchased because the petal >variation made me worry, but I also sent in some that did not have >those symptoms. They were all virused, even the ones that looked >fine. Nathan thinks the plants shown on the wiki were likely >misdiagnosed as virused but this is not so. It is possible that >plants with petal variation can be virused. It makes it very >challenging for the home gardener. > >Mary Sue > >_______________________________________________ >pbs mailing list >pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/