I have the exact same cross in bloom, and the flower is very close to these pictures. I agree that there is little of Paph hennisianum to be seen. The plant also looks very close to Paph appletonianum to me, though I haven't seen Paph hennisianum in person to compare. As listed there should be no question about Paph hennisianum being the pod parent but that is no guarantee of anyone's accurate record keeping. I'll see if I can find out the origin of this cross.
OK, so I checked with my source and he checked with the breeder, who is certain that no mistake has been made, despite noting the similarities to Paph appletonianum. Provisional registration is Paph Pink Poodle.
For those who have asked about any influence of hennisianum in the plant, here's a pic of my plant of this exact cross. The flower is 10cm across and held slightly forward of the front of the pot in this pic so it appears somewhat larger relative to the plant.
It's a beautiful appletonianum.....probably an accidental selfing of an appletonianum parent. There is no way the capsule parent of that flower was hennisianum. Google both hennisianum and appletonianum. On the appletonianums, look at things like the slight striping in the dorsal with a slightly darker and wider mark up the middle - the small dorsal - the way the dorsal's edges roll or curl - the shape of the opening of the pouch - the way the petals are held - colour - tiny warts on the upper margins of the petals - the olive shading at the base of the petals - and the staminode. All are like the flower pictured in this thread. Now, look at the hennisianums. Check out the same physical features; especially the petal shape and how they are held reflexed - the wide, flat dorsals - the much more destinct markings - the pouch shape and the staminode. I suspect that the two different clones pictured in this thread originated from the same cross and it either is a result of an accidental selfing of appletonianum; or, it is a case of a flask getting the wrong label.
As an appletonianum, they are both quite nice. They've got good pouch colour and nice, wide petals with good colour saturation at the tips. They're beautiful appletonianums!
I agree that it looks simply like a nice appletonianum, but the hybridizer is apparently confident enough that no mistake was made that they went ahead with registration.
I don't know who the hybridizer is but I was told they observed several differences between this and appletonianum in their collection: "leaves are entirely different", "stem length, while quite long, is a lot shorter than appletonianum" and "...vigor of the hybrid. I had a devil of a time growing appletonianum but these grow and flower like weeds".
They also wrote: "I made the cross to get pink petals. Our hennisianum is also pink on the petals". Perhaps the hennisianum involved is atypical or mislabeled.
How sloppy would someone have to be to confuse a randomly pollinated capsule on appletonianum for a deliberate cross on hennisianum?
Well, I'm no geneticist; but, I just can't believe that these flowers are a fair representation of the true mixing of the genes from these two species. Maybe it is possible for the pollen of one species to activate the unfertilized seeds enough to make them viable; but, they only can produce copies of the pollen parent, without including genes from the pod parent? I just don't know; we need an expert here. If I were the hybridizer, I would've had my flowers looked at by a taxonomist and/or asked some quetions of someone expert in plant genetics, before registering the hybrid. Even the hybridizer has to agree that the results are surprizing.
Firstly, I'm anything but an expert, however the principle of Occam's Razor says that when in doubt you are advised to go with the simplest explanation ... in this case, as expressed above, that this is not a hybrid.
If appletonianum was a less variable species than it is, then you might suggest that the leaves are shorter and broader than is typical for most ... but still within the range of plants of this species. If such extreme genetic dominance does occur between these species then it would be novel and interesting if reproducible ... experiment anyone ???
Does anyone know of hybrids between the related species bullenianum, hookerae and sangii with hennisianum. Hookerae is moderately dominant in Barbata crosses but nothing like this !!
As for genetic anomalies it is possible, although very, very improbable, that some chromosome loss has occurred in the zygote ... and/or that epigenetic mechanisms resulted in suppression of gene expression from regions of the hennis' genome that are involved in flower development. The problem with this is that you would then expect a lot of variation in the progeny ... unless ... you further proposed that due to some rare lethal incompatibility these genetic events where selected for ... but then this sort of thing hasn't been reported in paphs as far as I know ... and seed germination rates would be very, very, low ... not really believable for me.
If you want to apply Occam's Razor and that is the conclusion you reach, then you also must conclude that the hybridizer is negligent or fraudulent. Even in the face of their own questions and the questions from others they maintain no mistake was made and have proceeded to register the hybrid.
Logical results depend on starting conditions. If you assume the hybridizer is honest, diligent and reasonably intelligent do you reach the same conclusion? Would you confidently change the label of such a plant in your possession to appletonianum?
The leaves make me think bullenianum
... bullenianum x appletonianum ? was this cross done at the same time and flasks got mixed up ? Would explain the "reported" plant difference and hybrid vigour ?
Question is ... would any of you accept this as pure appletonianum to be used in future breeding ...?
Damn ! ... sure is great flower