Quantcast

Paph liemianum ? (another)

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

G

gore42

Guest
This bloom just opened this morning, and the color is very striking. It has the deepest pouch color that I've ever seen on a cochlopetalum, and the color on the dorsal is also very vivid. In addition, the petals have a lot more purple in them than usual. I'm not sure how well it comes across in the photo; I just can't seem to get purples that I'm very happy with with my camera. This photo was shot under natural light, and I think that helped a little, but it's still not perfect.

Anyway, I'm sure that the color in the pouch will fade as the pouch grows over the next week or so, but for the moment, I love it :)



And now, for the question of taxonomy. Again, this is a division of a wild collected plant which I had imported with the expectation that I'd be getting a "chamberlainianum". But this doesn't look like a victoria-regina to me. It looks more like a liemianum again, but the dorsal is sooo dark, it seems wrong. So, I'd like to hear your opinions. At the moment, I'm not entertaining the possibility that its an artificial hybrid; the evidence is too clear that part of this plant was once in the jungle.

I ALMOST sold this plant last month, and now I'm very glad that I didn't. Whatever the species is, it's really very pretty... I hope that it comes across in the photo.

As Ever,
Matthew Gore
 
G

gore42

Guest
Smartie,

For CITES purposes, division is a method of artificial propagation, and artificially propagated Appendix I species are treated like Appendix II (they are much easier to export and import). In my experience, this usually means that a grower has been growing some plant in a greenhouse for many years, and the division arrives here looking like a seed-raised plant. Sometimes, though, the parent plants were rescued from development sites, sometimes collected with permits, etc., and they arrive looking like jungle collected plants, and in those cases, I check with the exporter and try to get as much history about the particular plants as possible.

In all honesty, if I had known that these were of questionable wild origin, legal or not, I probably wouldn't have bought them. Some people have different feelings about that sort of thing, and I won't argue about it here, but that's my general opinion on the subject. When I do receive plants that are of questionable origin, I keep some for breeding to help undo any ecological damage that I might be responsible for.

-Matt
 

toddybear

Awarded Stud
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
3,861
Reaction score
0
Location
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
The overall pattern is most like liemianum in my opinion. However, your's has to be the best colour form I've ever seen. I think an awarded species will be in your near future!
 
C

couscous74

Guest
Nice flower.

Without meaning to provoke a debate...
If a collector takes a wild-collected plant that would be illegal to sell by itself under CITES, and divides it into 2 pieces, he can sell both halves of the plant as artificially propagated?:evil:
 
G

gore42

Guest
I suspect that division has the same requirement as flasks; in order for them to be legal in the USA, the parent plant(s) would also have to be legal. However, I don't really know that much about the exporting side of things... and the information that I get from exporters is not usually very ample. There are a few that I've developed good working relationships with, and that provide me with good plants and are (relatively) free in providing information. Most of the exporters I deal with lie most of the time, and I never know how much until the plants arrive. It's sad but true. It means that I usually order with any given exporter only once, but when I find a good one, I stick with them.

- Matt
 

gonewild

Grower
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
5,139
Reaction score
4
Location
Puerto Maldonado, Peru
couscous74 said:
Nice flower.

Without meaning to provoke a debate...
If a collector takes a wild-collected plant that would be illegal to sell by itself under CITES, and divides it into 2 pieces, he can sell both halves of the plant as artificially propagated?:evil:

To be technically correct the all portions of the wild collected plant that existed in the wild are wild collected. So if you divide 1 wild plant into 2 you would then have 2 wild collected plants.

You can't just go out and collect 1 huge plant, bring it home and divide into 10 plants and then think you know have 9 artificial plants. Well actually you might think that but that is somewhat of a dreamworld.

To be nursery propagated the plant would need to grow new growth in the nursery. The new growth could then be divided off and would be an artificially propagated plant.

As far as I understand it is not legal to import any plant or plant part into the USA that is wild collected and that would include portions of plants that existed at one time in a wild state.
 

Heather

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
10,483
Reaction score
16
Location
Sacramento, CA. Outside w/ Southeast Exposure
kentuckiense said:
I am ashamed to say that I really want one of those.
ZACH!!!

Seriously though - Matt got something that wasn't regarded as illegal by CITES. We all know CITES is f-***** up...this demonstrates it further.
I'm certainly not going to judge anyone but CITES needs to be re-thought. Clearly.

It's a fabulous looking flower.

This is a good opportunity for me to mention that we should not judge too harshly here. I had an interesting email from a member about the recent Pk news and people need to understand this is one vendor in Peru, not all.

Don't judge too harshly....that's all.
 
G

gore42

Guest
Lance,

Although I'm sure you're right, in practice, inspectors don't seem to mind if one of the old growths is still attached to the plant. That is to say, all of my plants are inspected by the USDA/APHIS when they enter the country, and even when portions of the plant appear to me to have jungle damage, the inspectors don't seem to mind, as long as the main growth or growths of the plant are new and greenhouse grown. This particular plant has three growths; the two largest growths look good, but the third growth (what's left of it) looks clearly wild.

This may be one of those things that inspctors just don't worry about as long as the rest of the paperwork is in order, and in each case (except one) the wild looking part of the plant was pretty minimal.

- Matt
 
I

IdahoOrchid

Guest
toddybear said:
I think an awarded species will be in your near future!
That may be true, but the species must be positively identified first.

The only other thing I will say is, "Almost", eh Matt?:D I still think we made the right choice.
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
Heather said:
I'm certainly not going to judge anyone but CITES needs to be re-thought. Clearly.
Yeah. From a slipper orchid conservation point of view, CITES does not make the greatest moral compass.

Heather said:
I thought you weren't judging!
 

gonewild

Grower
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
5,139
Reaction score
4
Location
Puerto Maldonado, Peru
gore42 said:
Lance,

Although I'm sure you're right, in practice, inspectors don't seem to mind if one of the old growths is still attached to the plant. That is to say, all of my plants are inspected by the USDA/APHIS when they enter the country, and even when portions of the plant appear to me to have jungle damage, the inspectors don't seem to mind, as long as the main growth or growths of the plant are new and greenhouse grown. This particular plant has three growths; the two largest growths look good, but the third growth (what's left of it) looks clearly wild.

This may be one of those things that inspctors just don't worry about as long as the rest of the paperwork is in order, and in each case (except one) the wild looking part of the plant was pretty minimal.

- Matt
Matt,

I was not suggesting your plants are not legal, I was just giving couscous74 an answer to his question.

Once the origin country issues the phytosanitary certificate the USDA inspectors will assume the plants are not wild.

Looking at a plant and determining it is wild grown or not can only be a guess. You can assume some of the collected wild plants end up in nurseries located in "jungle" communities. Plants can and should be grown by local people in nurseries and be eligible for export sales. After all the rural people are the ones who need the source of income. A point of interest I learned while living in the jungle is that no matter how hard you try it is almost impossible to grow a plant that is "clean". In the jungle environment all plants will grow lichen, algae and moss on their leaves and stems very quickly. The foliage will also age very fast and can get chewed up by local insects and monkeys come along and break and crack leaves. In a short time these nursery grown plants look just like wild plants. After all they are perhaps only a few meters from a wild environment.

Just because your plant has one old growth that looks wild does not mean it is wild and you can assume it is legally propagated.

Also, the law about the USDA not allowing entry of wild collected plants has nothing to do with CITES and is not limited to orchids. The restriction is to help prevent entry of pests and disease that may be present in the wild and not in licensed nurseries.

FYI... I am glad you are able to import the plants you get.
Keep up the good work.
 
G

gore42

Guest
Matt, can you have that judged? The dorsal color is stunning, as is the rest of the flower.
The DOS spring show is next month, I think. I haven't been to the last several meetings (and I think my membership lapsed!). Anyway, the show will be judged, so if I want this one considered, I'd have to enter it into the show. Don't know how this thing will look in a month, though... probably not great.

Lance, no offense taken, just wanted to make sure things were all clear. :)

- Matt
 

Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
12,765
Reaction score
3
Location
Leiper's Fork, TN
IdahoOrchid said:
That may be true, but the species must be positively identified first.

The only other thing I will say is, "Almost", eh Matt?:D I still think we made the right choice.
From what I have seen in Judging, ID verification is somewhat discretionary. A species that has been around and already has an award history will probably get judged without outside taxonomic verification if the judges are comfortable with their own ID capabilities. If they are not comfortable and the flower is realy stretching their boundaries, then it may get a provisional award until the ID is verified by one of the AOS sanctioned taxanomic authorities (there is a list of these authorities on the AOS website). Judging is often colaborative in my experience, and on real oddballs that I have presented for judging I have been asked if I had my own taxonomic references to supply with the plants.

Provisional awards pending ID verification are routinely required (or mandatory) for species with little or no award history at the CHM award level.
 
Top