Guess the species Game

[Rick]

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

Check out the picture of "var. moquettianum" in Cash's book (first printing 1991). Does anyone know the origin of that plant. It's a dead ringer for the one that Ramon flowered and the type that Andy's was selling in early to mid 2000's. The "moquettianum" in the OD Paph checklist Vol 64 (2000) shows an intermediate flower with less dense spotting, but the spots arranged in stripes.

 

[Ernie]

Cash's slipper book is very poor for IDs IMO.

-Ernie

 

[Rick]

Cash's slipper book is very poor for IDs IMO.

-Ernie

Is that because of poor photo quality or undocumented plants being photographed? Which is why I question the source of the plant in the photo representing moquettianum.

 

[Ernie]

I remember there being lots of species misidentified in the captions.

-Ernie

 

[Rick]

I remember there being lots of species misidentified in the captions.

-Ernie

Given how close the flower in Cash's book looks like Ramon's it would seem that the question of the "true" identity" of moquetianum was just as debatable prior to 1991 as it is now.:clap:

Do you think its possible that todays standard for moquetianum has evolved by human psychology to only except the most extreme forms of it (largest clones with only sparse and total random spots) to make it more acceptable as a truly different variety?

In situ photos of paphs are rarer than the paphs themselves, and since sites are so expensive and difficult to get to, there is very little documentation of the natural variation of the species. We generally only see snapshots of isolated populations. So when a truly unique clone of a species makes it into cultivation we breed the heck out of it and make it the new standard for the species. When something a bit different comes along (that would otherwise challenge the mental box we've constructed for that species) then our first assumption is hybrid, even if it's a documented jungle collected plant.

 

[Ernie]

Rick,

I'll have to find a copy of Cash's book to refresh my memory before continuing. I understand what you mean though.

Back to Leo's discussion. I reviewed some of the details (ie. Cribb v Braem) and the story in Braem and Chiron, 2003 is a pretty clearly laid out summary. However, I disagree with Braem that it is acceptable that victoria-regina is tossed out because the plants disappeared (inferred that they died in transport?). My point of contention is that it was a commercial firm throwing the names out there. Were they trying to separate the "healthier" population from the ones that croaked so clients wouldn't be weary? Regardless of how great an orchidist the collector was, it was in his best interest to bend the truth to protect his source, yes? There are tons of stories of firms changing the details to be the only ones with a species. Even modern day firms change names or use the less-heard name for a fairly common species- rare equals valuable. Were/are victoria-regina and chamberlainianum really different species? We'll never know and it is unfair for us to infer. Using what info is provided and not drawing any conclusions or making any assumptions, v-r takes priority IMO. The greatest tool of a Hennigian Phylogeneticist is Occam's razor, all else being equal, the simplest answer is the correct one. Parsimony rules Ernie's world. Vive Willi! All you other folks are Liklihoodists living in a world of assumptions and should be punished. Sorry, it's getting late.

-Ernie

 

[Rick]

Aren't orchids great as an inspirational tool for human philosophy:evil:

 

[SlipperKing]

Rick I have to agree with Ernie in that Cash's book really does suck as far as photography and positive ID. Another photo of two cochlo's beside each other claims one flower to be victoria reginae and the other as glauco. To me they look the same, glaucophyllums (even thou the left flower has a bad glare on the dorsal)

Rick H

 

[Rick]

Rick I have to agree with Ernie in that Cash's book really does suck as far as photography and positive ID. Another photo of two cochlo's beside each other claims one flower to be victoria reginae and the other as glauco. To me they look the same, glaucophyllums (even thou the left flower has a bad glare on the dorsal)

Rick H

I know which photo you are refering and it does suck, but that is irrelevant to comparing the pic of the photo labled as moquettianum to Ramon's flower. The photo labeled as var. moquettianum is very clear, and looks very much like Ramons flower. I don't know the source of that plant any more than most of the moquettianums I see for sale, but given the date that photo was put into print (1991) it would seem that the standard by which moquettianums have been described from has been contentious for many years. Also I mentioned a pic from the 2000 OD paph checklist by Koopowitz that has a more intermediate moquettianum with spots laid out in stipes. I don't know the source of that plant either. So is there such a thing as a "true" moquettianum in trade in the US? Is the standard of sparse random spotting considered the "true" var. simply because we can't acount for the variation in the species and the lack of proper collection data, so we only accept the most extreme form in hand as the only true form. If some one produces a flower with no spots at all, will that supplant all the spotted forms as the true form, and all spotted forms will be considered as hybrids (illicit or otherwise) at that point?

This may be a job only for cytology and DNA testing.

Try this one http://www.ladyslipper.com/0527-04.htm. And this one http://www.orchidweb.com/orchidofweek.aspx?id=595

Maybe Bob and Jerry can give us the sources of these.

 

[SlipperKing]

P moquettianum 'Doc's X 'Pink coral'

I kicked started this thread again because I said I would post a pic of this moquettianum cross I made and here it is. It ain't anything special but I did grow it from seed and it being father's day coming up, I'm a little prideful P moquettianum 'Fat Lip'

 

[SlipperKing]

I know which photo you are refering and it does suck, but that is irrelevant to comparing the pic of the photo labled as moquettianum to Ramon's flower. The photo labeled as var. moquettianum is very clear, and looks very much like Ramons flower. I don't know the source of that plant any more than most of the moquettianums I see for sale, but given the date that photo was put into print (1991) it would seem that the standard by which moquettianums have been described from has been contentious for many years. Also I mentioned a pic from the 2000 OD paph checklist by Koopowitz that has a more intermediate moquettianum with spots laid out in stipes. I don't know the source of that plant either. So is there such a thing as a "true" moquettianum in trade in the US? Is the standard of sparse random spotting considered the "true" var. simply because we can't acount for the variation in the species and the lack of proper collection data, so we only accept the most extreme form in hand as the only true form. If some one produces a flower with no spots at all, will that supplant all the spotted forms as the true form, and all spotted forms will be considered as hybrids (illicit or otherwise) at that point?

This may be a job only for cytology and DNA testing.

Try this one http://www.ladyslipper.com/0527-04.htm. And this one http://www.orchidweb.com/orchidofweek.aspx?id=595

Maybe Bob and Jerry can give us the sources of these.

Rick I had a moque with a clear yellow doesal and not that first spot on it. I had no doults of it's ID. I had used it to breed more moques and the ones that have bloomed look like typical moques with spots.

 

[Mrs. Paph]

Can you post another pic sans special lighting?

 

[Rick]

Rick I had a moque with a clear yellow doesal and not that first spot on it. I had no doults of it's ID. I had used it to breed more moques and the ones that have bloomed look like typical moques with spots.

When you said "you bred with it to get more moques" does that mean you selfed it? If you selfed it and got spots from no spots it sounds like spotting might be pretty variable in this species.

The pic on your earlier post is kind of dark, but is that the offspring of the cross you mention in an earlier post between the two "victoria-regina" aka OZ moquetXglaucophylum? It looks like a standard moque.

Do you have any pics of the parents of this cross?

 

[SlipperKing]

When you said "you bred with it to get more moques" does that mean you selfed it? If you selfed it and got spots from no spots it sounds like spotting might be pretty variable in this species.

The pic on your earlier post is kind of dark, but is that the offspring of the cross you mention in an earlier post between the two "victoria-regina" aka OZ moquetXglaucophylum? It looks like a standard moque.

Do you have any pics of the parents of this cross?

Rick,
The moque with the clear dorsal ( clonal name,'Pink Limbs'), I believe came form Carter & Holmes and I used it as one parent the other parent was moquettianum 'Pink Coral' AM/AOS. Now, the poorly light moquettianum that I just posted is a cross of the clones; 'Doc's' and 'Pink Coral'. Both of these parent plants have spotted dorsals.

 

[benilaca]

Leaves > NOT moquettianum! Not a spp. in the Coch. group.
Probably a hybrid. From the look of the buds & color of brack > littii X glauco. avail. as Pinochio or Pinochio X littii sold as Avalon Mist???