Does anyone believe that a true Phragmipaphium has been made?

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by kentuckiense, Apr 3, 2007.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Aug 31, 2007 #41
    :eek: I think I was a little distracted when I wrote that I meant Cattleya with Laelia, Brassavolae and Vanda with Phalaenopsis, Renanthera, Ascocentrum and many others.

    Sorry!
     
  2. Aug 31, 2007 #42

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,087
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    If it's possible and the plant isn't some kind of toxic/lethal virus vector then why not. Heather if Chef Morimoto prepared the pigoat wouldn't you eat it?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2007
  3. Aug 31, 2007 #43

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Haha that's acceptable then!

    However, I'd like to warn against trying to equate the intergeneric breeding of Paph/Phrag with that of Cattleya/Laelia(or whatever they are now). It is important to remember that the divisions that create genera are human constructs and are rarely "equal" with each other. For instance, the fact that Cattleya and Laelia are readily capable of interbreeding should not be used to infer equal breeding potential with Paph/Phrag. I need to brush up on my orchid evolution, but I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium have been reproductively isolated from one another (and thus evolving separately) for far longer than Laelia and Cattleya or Vanda and Phalaenopsis.
     
  4. Aug 31, 2007 #44

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,087
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    If that's true then wouldn't the PaphxPhrag be impossible.
    Evolution=Blasphemy!
     
  5. Aug 31, 2007 #45

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Not necessarily, but it's my personal opinion that Paph x Phrag is next to impossible.

    Get new material, please.
     
  6. Aug 31, 2007 #46

    bwester

    bwester

    bwester

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we should be like those crazy Soviet scientists of the cold war era and make something extremely outlandish like a paph micranthum with the ass of a guinea pig grafted to it..... assmapaphium
    :rollhappy:
     
  7. Sep 1, 2007 #47
    I can't imagine a true phragmipaphium. I've seen photo's of the chromosomes, and they are very different, in both number and size...I think Phrag chromosomes are smaller, but it may be vice-versa. I cannot imagine these different sets of chromosomes pairing up successfully. On the other hand, is there a possibility of Selenipedium by Phrag or Mexipedium? Its worth it for the weirdness......Take care, Eric
     
  8. Sep 2, 2007 #48

    Roy

    Roy

    Roy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,260
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Halls Gap,Western Victoria, Australia
    Eric M, I believe your post is near correct. I asked the question of Phrag x paph of Dr Guido Braem once and his reply was that the genetics difference between the two would not allow them to mate.
    Roy.
     
  9. Sep 2, 2007 #49

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,087
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    I like to hope that the crosses are possible because that would make more beautiful plants available :).
     

Share This Page

arrow_white