Maudiae 'Los Osos' AM/AOS_08

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

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

SlipperKing

Madd Virologist
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
19,906
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Pearland TX
Norris Powell's original clone. callosum X lawrenceianum
MauLosOsos08-1-1.jpg


I've never had an easier "Maudiae" type to grow and enjoy. Always blooms twice a year.
 
I know it's confusing Corbin. However, in orchids, context is everything. The word clone is routinely used to refer to a specific, individual plant and has nothing to do with cloning.....as well, it can be used to refer to a plant that was produced by a cloning process in a lab.
 
Rick,

At the risk of seeming to be unduly negative, I don't think that is 'Los Osos'. Anyone who knew Norris Powell was aware of his tendency to leave certain details off his tags, most prominently 'x self'. Norris sold an unbelievable number of mottle-leaf Paphs that were labeled as either Maudiae 'Los Osos' or 'The Queen', seemingly far more than anyone could propagate by division.

Take a look at Bob Wellenstein's site ( http://www.ladyslipper.com/671j.htm ) for comparison. The dorsals alone seem to indicate that they are not the same clone.

Regards,
Rick
 
I know it's confusing Corbin. However, in orchids, context is everything. The word clone is routinely used to refer to a specific, individual plant and has nothing to do with cloning.....as well, it can be used to refer to a plant that was produced by a cloning process in a lab.

I have seen ads for paph seedlings and the word clone is used in a way which seems to be trying to lead the buyer to believe that they are genetic clones. Very misleading / confusing.
 
Rick,

At the risk of seeming to be unduly negative, I don't think that is 'Los Osos'. Anyone who knew Norris Powell was aware of his tendency to leave certain details off his tags, most prominently 'x self'. Norris sold an unbelievable number of mottle-leaf Paphs that were labeled as either Maudiae 'Los Osos' or 'The Queen', seemingly far more than anyone could propagate by division.

Take a look at Bob Wellenstein's site ( http://www.ladyslipper.com/671j.htm ) for comparison. The dorsals alone seem to indicate that they are not the same clone.

Regards,
Rick
Rick go to entry #29 on page 3 of this thread
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9780&page=3
I've had this plant 18yrs and it came from the source of this story. Also, this flower depending the time of yr blooming, looks different each time(summer vs winter). Another thing, the dorsal in this PIC is actually leaning forward more then usual. I had one of those selfings and it was crape. It also had a more solid mauroon dorsal too similar to the antec PIC.
 
I have seen ads for paph seedlings and the word clone is used in a way which seems to be trying to lead the buyer to believe that they are genetic clones.

Clones (in this case divisions) would be genetically the same. Clone=division in paph terminology.

Thanks for the photo and the history in the other thread.
 
Hi Rick,

I did see your previous posting which you reference, and Kay Rinaman probably could have pulled that off. Most of the rest of us might have ended up with a bloody nose, or at least been escorted out feet first. Norris was no shrinking violet even in his latter years, and I doubt that he was ever one to back away from a challenge.

One thing always struck me as odd when I saw his 'divisions' of 'Los Osos' and 'The Queen' for sale: they had printed labels, the kind that breeders typically print up when they are potting seedlings from trays or compots. Most growers hand-write labels for divisions, since the quantity doesn't usually merit setting up the printer.

I'm not categorically declaring that what you have is not 'Los Osos', but I can't help but wonder if this isn't a classic example of 'Norris being Norris'.

Regards,
Rick
 

Latest posts

Back
Top