delenatii alba x venustum var. measuresianum

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

P.K.Hansen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
751
Reaction score
550
Location
Southern Denmark
It looked even worse the first time.
Is this just one of those crosses that makes no sense, or is this clone simply extremely poor? If anybody has a good one, please show it.
When I saw it for sale, I thought it would make an interesting hybrid, but this outcome is just awfull :confused:
Anyway, I'll give it one more chance to straighten up.

50739217746_62ee1396da_c.jpg
 
IMO delenatii x venustum is not a good idea and I wouldn't combine any of the Parvysepalum with the Sigmatopetalum.
Not worth the bench space. It will not improve.
 
Last edited:
I can only second the above! It is as if this hybrid have sought out and combined any features in the two (gorgeous) species, that wouldn't go together - and then multiplied them manyfold - an alternative take on hybrid vigour, I imagine! 😁
And, Per, do take head of the advice from Fibre, our master hybridiziser! ;)
 
One clue to the probable outcome of this breeding is the hybrid has never been registered by the RHS, although the parent species have been around for a long time. But I would still give it one more chance.
 
I would like to see the leaves at the least. These hybrids tend to have very pretty leaves. I made a cross knowing that the flower will be ugly and deformed for the most part, but did it anyways for the leaves. I have a bunch of seedlings now and they all have great leaves, some even variegated! :)
 
I agree. The combination of flower color and leaf pattern in non-album Paph. venustum make it a standout species. Easy to grow and remains compact for those without a lot of growing space.
 
It is an ugly flower... if it straightenes out on the next blooming I would cross it to an album delenatii.
I’ve been breeding/hybridizing ‘things’ for a long time. In orchids, no one seems to use plants with ‘less desirable’ characteristics as breeders. It’s true that phenotype tells you there’s genetic characteristics that produced what you’re looking at but there can also be genes for desirable characteristics you don’t see. In the grand scheme of things some of the best hybrids across the spectrum of ‘things’ been bred come from using parents with less than desirable characteristics. As an example... if a new color popped up and the conformation was not desirable but you wanted to make more of that color. you might self it or breed it back to each of the parents and each of the parents to it. Once you have more of that color you can work improve the conformation over time.
Maybe the breeder was looking for a album flower with wider petals and a cool tessellated pouch... it might take time but that would be pretty nice.
Yes orchids take time but I’m convinced lots of great outcomes have been lost to impatience and instant gratification. Some examples would include album forms of new Paphiopedilum and mini complex Paphiopedilum... years of work with not the best offspring and now we have some very cool stuff.
 
Interesting discussion.

I for one think the flower looks distorted with the pouch pinch to one side of the staminode. However the petals hold well and the dorsal sepal is slightly uneven. I do like the ghostly cream-green color (almost album, saved the dark spots on petal base) and I think the shape has potential if the pouch 'normalizes'.

If this bloom has improved over the previous bloom, then it also means the flower may improve next bloom?

I would give it a second chance. Or rather third in this case.

Also the compactness and leaf patterns must make the plant have a cute look?
 
Wow~ There is almost no delenatii influence other than it diffused the venustum patterns. Well, even easier to say goodbye now. hahaha
 

Latest posts

Back
Top