Quantcast

Guess the species Game

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

E

Ernie

Guest
Paph. primulinum var purpurescens.

How can glaucophyllum be closer than liemianum? :)

-Ernie
 
E

Ernie

Guest
Second guess is Paph. victoria-regina (chamberlainianum) but ours never have that deep color on the inflorescence. The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum? kalinae and victoria-mariae aren't seen very often in collections, so I doubt it's either of these two.

-Ernie
 

SlipperKing

Madd Virologist
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
19,019
Reaction score
324
Location
Pearland TX
Second guess is Paph. victoria-regina (chamberlainianum) but ours never have that deep color on the inflorescence. The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum? kalinae and victoria-mariae aren't seen very often in collections, so I doubt it's either of these two.

-Ernie
Ernie, I quess you're going to name all of them until you hit the right one!:poke:
"The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum?" This what the tag says it is. We'll see who is right, you or the tag:D I thought it's awfully dark color for moquettianum myself. Here is the plant

 
M

Mrs. Paph

Guest
I recently got a moq (or it better be anyway! :) ) in bud and it doesn't have nearly that much purple pigment at the base/underside of the leaves, lots of purple hairs on the spike/buds though...the buds are also less 'pointy' like Ernie said. Hopefully we both have what we expected! :) I haven't started taking pics yet, but I will soon leading up to the bloom opening. I've wanted a moq for so long!!!
 

rdlsreno

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,805
Reaction score
1
Location
Reno, NV
I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.

Ramon:)

Paph. glaucophylum var.?


Plant
 

Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
12,765
Reaction score
3
Location
Leiper's Fork, TN
I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.

Ramon:)

Paph. glaucophylum var.?
Ramon I have a moquettianum similar to yours. I purchased it as glaucophylum from Andy's, but post flowering it was obvious that it was not a glaucophylum. There is allot of natural variation in moquettianum that range from almost stripes in the dorsal to just scattered fine spots. Based on just color differences (and even geography) I probably wouldn't have considered these as different species, but apparently there is a chromosome count difference between the two, which appears to warrant more taxonomic separation. Also I tend to grow my moquettianum warmer and brighter than many folks, and as I've eased the plant into darker conditions the plant and flower is getting bigger.
 
E

Ernie

Guest
We'll see when it opens then SlipperKing. Ramon, look at the many small dimples on your glaucophyllum's dorsal sepal... that is a moquettianum trait. The leaves certainly look glaucous, but not quite as much as the straight species. Anyway, neat... I might be alone, but I find this section fascinating. :) In breeding, glaucophyllum lends a ton of red, whereas "the same hybrid" made by subbing in the other cochlos, usually moq gives the least (other than prim flavum that is). Moq gives flower size, plant size, and a fairly clean dorsal with dimples.

-Steve Jobs (Ernie)
 
E

Ernie

Guest
True Paph liemianum (accepted as a valid species by RHS, and rightfully so IMO) has cilia along the entire leaf margin, not just at the base. Also, liemianum has darker leaves with dark red-brown tiger-like stripes on the underside as opposed to the basal flush of red-brown seen here. The red-brown markings also appear on the bracts.

-Ernie
 

SlipperKing

Madd Virologist
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
19,019
Reaction score
324
Location
Pearland TX
I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.

Ramon:)

Paph. glaucophylum var.?
Ramon and all others,
Your plant/flower brings up all kinds of feelings in me. This maybe another case of "muddying up" the species gene pool. We have had other threads on this topic, delenatii (normal colored form vs. vinicolors), hookerae vs. volonteanum, hirsutis. vs. esquirolei and of course the Cochlos. It bugs me that breeders make these crosses between closely related species and you end up with this jumbled mess with lost tags, poor record keeping or whatever. Then some Taxo dude comes along and says"this is all one species". "Can't you see, this is normal variation within the group". When this "intermediate" group of plants have traits of both parent species is nothing more then a hybridizer mess. I'm not saying all people who hybridize are unprofessional about their work but it starts there by making these crosses. The whole seller that buys can add to the problem with bad records and/or lost tags. Then the retailer can compound the issue with more of the same. There is one local retailer I'll never buy from again. Too many times they have Paphs with clearly "miss labelled" tags in the pots.
Let me tell you all a story about two plants that look exactly like Ramon's pictured here,flowers and growths. A friend of mine took a trip back in the mid to late 90's to Calif. He hooked up with a number of Paph folks out that way and they toured a lot of different orchid firms. Anyway, he got back to Houston with two Paphs and they where labelled "Paph victoria regina", both in spike. I suggested we cross the two and make the next generation. When they flowered, we were both shooked to see this unusaul combination. At the same time there was a disscusion going a round in the Paph world over the true naming of victoria regina vs. chamberlainianum. So with this plant in my hand, I thought this is it! Because we both had plants labelled chamberlainianum and they looked nothing like these plants! Chamberlainianums were huge, stiff leaved, green plants with totally different flowers and bloom habits. Our plants labelled victoria regina were smaller, blue-green with a thin maroon color to the edge of the leaves and different flower/ bloom habit. I thought I knew something that the experts missed! That chamber and victora were two different plants and not merely the same plant with two names.
Well to make this long story longer! I grew out the cross we had made and sold compots to people labelled as "Paph victoria regina". It was a mistake! I came to find out later at one of our shows these two plants were fakes. I pointed the plant out to a long time friend, Norito Hasegawa. He told me the plant was a cross that Terry Root had make between moquettieanum and glaucophyllum and that the plants were misslabelled.
Now you can see why I have problems with these same "close species crosses. It started from the hybridization and I compounded the problem:(

My plant may indeed turnout to be one of these "hybrid" species coming back to haunt me!:sob:
 

Roy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
1
Location
Halls Gap,Western Victoria, Australia
SlipperKing, you have expressed words about these plants which is totally correct and is a pleasure to read. Any comments regarding " normal variation " in these plants have to be in doubt. Not wishing to upset anyone but the problem, as you have experienced, is as common as fresh air. For years now, pics of supposed species of the Cochlos have been shown on the net or catalogs that are far from the known description of the species named. Even the plants exhibit differences. I'm not saying that variations don't occur but the variations are just too great, there has to be another species in there. The biggest problem occurs when growers / hybridists refuse to recognise the errors and correct them before they get out of control and growers like yourself go through what you did. This problem has been occuring for the last 30 years that I know of and have experienced.
Its too late to do much now as this family of paphs is so corrupt it probably will never be corrected.
 

Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
12,765
Reaction score
3
Location
Leiper's Fork, TN
I agree with both Roy and Rick H that indiscriminate breeding puts allot of seed grown plants on the benches that are a mess in terms of representing "true" species. But I've seen in situ photos of many "species" that demonstrate fantastic variation. I also suspect that many of the early collected plants were select and prime examples of what the collectors thought of as the "best example" of that particular species (which would inherently reduce the real population variation that we would experience).

Take a walk in the woods sometime. I've seen variations in Jack in the Pulpit within a 1/4 acre of forest that go way beyond the variation we are looking at between the standard moquet vs glauc. A hike in Fiery Gizzard, TN will yield incredible variation in Cyp. acule to which a taxonomist working with pressed specimens in a lab would be hard pressed to call them the same species. Some of the recent in situ work with slippers in Vietnam, and cattleyas in Brazil demonstrate incredible variation that just about makes taxonomy by standard cladistics useless.

I'm not trying to get breeders off the hook, and collectors are just as palpable for not appropriately documenting collection sites. But at this point trying to ID similar paph species and variants by picture ID is a pretty useless exercise without some DNA info to go with it.
 

Latest posts

Top