New natural Phragmipedium hybrid.

[Rob Zuiderwijk]

Hi,

For those interested. In the last issue of the bulletin from the German Orchid Society (D.O.G.), 'Die Orchidee', Olaf Gruss described a new natural Phragmipedium hybrid.

Phragmipedium xmerinoi O. Gruss
= Phrag. boissierianum var. reticulatum x Phrag. pearcei.

Based on plants growing at Ecuagenera and named after Gilberto Merino.


All the best,

Rob Zuiderwijk

 

[NYEric]

Where are the photos Smitty!?

 

[Drorchid]

Isn't Phrag. richteri also considered a natural hybrid between Phrag. pearcei and Phrag. boisierianum?

Robert

 

[Drorchid]

By the way Rob, congratulations with The Netherlands making it to the Finals of the World Cup Soccer! Hup Holland Hup!!!

Robert

 

[Shiva]

I too would like to see a picture of the flower.

 

[SlipperFan]

Isn't Phrag. richteri also considered a natural hybrid between Phrag. pearcei and Phrag. boisierianum?

Robert

Rob has on his website that richteri is a variety of boisierianum.

He doesn't have the new natural hybrid up on his website yet...

 

[tomkalina]

I'm with Robert; if it's (pearcei x boissierianum), it's already been named (by Olaf) as Phrag. x richteri.

 

[Ernie]

Maybe it's because the reticulatum version of boissier was used??? RHS is a little at odds on these issues. Anitum gets its own hybrid names even though it's sunk within adductum.

 

[tomkalina]

Maybe Olaf can explain the reasoning? The last I heard, Phrag.boissierianum, czerwiakowianum and reticulatum, were considered to be the same species, but with some regional variation in color and flower morphology. What we really need is a modern taxonomic treatment for the Genus.

 

[Drorchid]

Maybe Olaf can explain the reasoning? The last I heard, Phrag.boissierianum, czerwiakowianum and reticulatum, were considered to be the same species, but with some regional variation in color and flower morphology. What we really need is a modern taxonomic treatment for the Genus.

I think Phillip Cribb is working on a taxonomic treatment on Phragmipediums (will be similar to his Paphiopedilum treatment).

Robert

 

[slippertalker]

There will always be controversy with such lumping and splitting. One persons species is anothers variety. Natural hybrids are simply under the same difference of philosophy.

 

[jewel]

how do they know these are natural hybrids? are they guessing and hoping for the best or do they experiment with primary crosses?

 

[slippertalker]

They are discovered in locations that usually have both species available........hence natural hybrid.

 

[Leo Schordje]

They are discovered in locations that usually have both species available........hence natural hybrid.

In theory this is true, but there have been a fair number of natural hybrids that later proved to be valid species in their own right. Espesially when the distribution of the putative natural hybrid extends into areas far from the area where the putative parents co-exist. Until more data is gathered, or DNA studies are done, the jury is still out. Unfortunately deforestation is making it more and more difficult to determine the original range for many species. Case in point was x conco-bellatulum, later renamed to Paph wenshanense. Time will tell. I hope Cribb does a better job with the Phrag treatment than he did with Paphs. In the Paph book there were a number of species that he collapsed into one, that time is showing probably should have been kept as valid species. I am not a taxonomist, so I have decided to just nod my head and keep my labels the way they are for the time being.

 

[slippertalker]

Leo,

Plants don't fit well into the nice box that we create for them. They are evolving to adapt to their conditions which include isolation, wide dispersion and climate change. Often natural hybrids will occur in a population of species that have been randomly pollinated by an intruder, but as you indicate some of them are later determined to be species or species that are defining themselves. A good example of such is Paph hermannii ....

 

[Rick]

When did richteri (amazonica) become a natural hybrid?

Olaf has it as a species in his 2003 OD article.

Time fly's when your having taxonomic fun!!!

 

[Rob Zuiderwijk]

Hi all,

I apologize for the late response(s)

@Eric.
Sorry, I don't have photos of the newly described hybrid. The article which contains the description has very few photos. I don't think Olaf and/or the D.O.G. would appreciate me publishing their content. ;o)

@Dorothy
I think you misread of misinterpreted the text on my web site. At the moment I have the taxon richteri mentioned as being a species. In fact the people that consider richteri a true species place it in a different section of the genus than boissierrianum and it's subspecies are.

About richteri being a species or a natural hybrid. That richteri is mentioned as a species on my web site is probably due to the fact that I used German sources to startup my PhragWeb project. Most of these where written by Olaf Gruss. Nothing wrong with that. In fact I learned a lot from his publications. It's just that he consideres the taxon richteri a true species, and that's why it started out as a species on my web site. Some time now I more and more tend to considering it a natural hybrid. But this is purely based on the information that reaches me. I haven't studied the taxon so to speak.

Already in 1993 Bennett and Christenson depicted it as a natural hybrid in Icones Orchidacearum Peruvianum without publishing an official description.
If I'm not mistaken the International Orchid Register at Kew consideres it to be a natural hybrid of pearcei and boissierrianum as well. Speaking of the Register which tends to follow Cribb and co., a taxonomical treatment by Cribb would interest me. Looking at the Monocot Checklist I tend not always to agree with Cribb, so his arguments why will be interesting.

I also heard that in the past Guido Braem started a treatment of the genus Phragmipedium, but that he stepped away from it because of publisher and financial reasons.

@Tom
I agree. The only thing I can think of why Olaf would describe the new natural hybrid is that he consideres richteri to be a species, so xrichteri vs xmerinoi is not an issue for him.

@Bill
Yes, there will always be the "fight" between the Splitters and the Lumpers. I personally am of the opinion that if a taxon is distinct enough it should be described, as a species, subspecies, variety or form.
And that in such case the distinction of the taxon should justify the registration/description of (natural) hybrids. In the past so many hybrids have been lumped into one hybrid because some authority did not recognise subspecies, varieties and forms as separate entities.

All the best,

Rob Zuiderwijk

 

[SlipperFan]

@Dorothy
I think you misread of misinterpreted the text on my web site. At the moment I have the taxon richteri mentioned as being a species. In fact the people that consider richteri a true species place it in a different section of the genus than boissierrianum and it's subspecies are.

Misread, I think. After reading your note, I went back to see if I could find where (I thought) I saw that, but it's not there. I may have, in haste, read reticulatum as richteri. (well, they both begin with "r" ) Thanks for the correction.

 

[NYEric]

Hi all,

@Eric.
Sorry, I don't have photos of the newly described hybrid. The article which contains the description has very few photos. I don't think Olaf and/or the D.O.G. would appreciate me publishing their content. ;o)

Don't worry Smitty, Copyright laws don't apply to us cyber pirates! :viking:

 

[ORG]

Please excuse that I write so late but I had no time in the last weeks to visit the different forums in the net.
For me Phrag. richteri is a distinct species. In the last years I have seen hundreds of them in different countries in flower labeled as richteri, topperi, amazonica, peruviana, boissierianum minor and also as ecuadorense, but all had the same flowers with a low variability.
I have seen also plants from artificial propagation and all produced near the same flowers.
So the new natural hybrid is not the same. The flower shows for the first view similarities but the analyze shows many differences.

I had the possibility to analyze 10 plants from the same collection in Ecuador.
Here 3 different clones of

With best greetings

Olaf