Paph. sanderianum vs. Paph. rothschildianum

[The Orchid Boy]

I've been wondering, why is Paph. rothschildianum so popular, more popular than Paph. sanderianum? It is called the "king of paphs" and there is lots of line breeding and it is easy to find different crosses of rothschildianum, many websites and sellers list many crosses but usually have 1 sanderianum cross or they have a few and don't bother with the cross name. Sanderianum seems to me like it should be the king of paphs. Rothschildianum's have gotten a lot of FCCs and in the older information I looked in, sanderianum's received none. Do judges show favoritism? Paph. sanderianum is my favorite orchid and when I ask nonorchid friends if they like sanderianum or rothschildianum better, they usually say sanderianum. Since sanderianum is my favorite, I wish it was more popular. So why has rothschildianum always been more popular?

 

[Rick]

Ease of culture seems to have trumped "popularity".

Sanderianum and roth were discovered about the same time (1880-1890), but all the original import sandies were fairly short lived (unlike the roths).

At one point no one could even find sanderianum in Borneo and it was "rediscovered" fairly recently (I think in the 70's or 80's??). All the while people were doing good enough with roths to actually get some line breeding going (although there was a huge resurgence with fresh imports around the same time sanderianum was rediscovered).

Sandies remained a "tough to grow" species until fairly recently. So I expect that it will become more popular as easier line bred cultivars become available.

 

[Rick]

I've see lots of roths at shows, but I have yet to see a sanderianum at a show, or the judging center I frequent.

The award history is a reflection of rarity in collections (since very few could keep a sandi alive for any significant length of time), rather than popularity with judges.

 

[NYEric]

Ummm..ever read Orchid Fever? You will see a hint of why Paph sanderianum was so elusive as a parent. Import difficulties, location, etc.

 

[emydura]

If you took away the long petals, sanderianum is a dog of a flower. Terrible dorsal and awful shoulders in the petals. Breeding will improve that to some degree but never to the extent where it will match rothschildianum for shape and flower size (petal length aside).

 

[goldenrose]

Good topic Orchid Boy!
We've had some good comments already, here's my 2 cents worth.
Roths seem to mature/bloom faster than sandies. Culture is suppose to be pretty similar other than light. Chuck Acker once told me he felt sandies were not difficult to grow but people killed them with kindness trying to protect their investment. I have both and both are very slow, if I had it to do over, I would wait to be able to afford to purchase a larger plant.
Sandies are probably more expensive due to them not being as popular - supply & demand.
Sandies are not seen at judging centers or shows, why? Timing of blooming is always a factor for any orchid but their long petals don't stay pristine for long & they're hard to transport without damage.
Considering all of the above, the sandie hybrids are probably more popular than the species.

 

[Justin]

Agree with David, aside from the cool petals the flowers are pretty bad. Don't get me wrong, i enjoy growing sanderianum and they are really cool to see in flower, but they have nothing on the symmetry, color, and majestic stance of a roth flower.

Also, sand is a pretty poor hybridizer. With a few exceptions, sand makes the form of almost any other flower it is hybridized with worse. It washes out the color too. As a hybridizer roth makes pretty much every other flower better.

But of course beauty is in the eye, and like i said i do like sands but for me they are more of a "curiosity" orchid not necessarily something grown for its sublime beauty like roth.

 

[dodidoki]

If you ask me, I can tell that I love better roths. But sanderianum is almost equal...don't know. But in fact that roths are many more easier to grow plants, faster, not so sensitive to diseases eg. So I think they are more popular because of this.

I have three roths, they are very big, full of roots and leaves. I have a BS sanderianum, grows fine but very sloooow.

 

[slippertalker]

A well grown rothschildianum is simply majestic, more so than any species in the genus. Sanderianum is lovely but the primary virtue is the long, long petals. If roth is the king, sanderianum is the graceful queen.

 

[Fabrice]

Sanderianum have an incredible flower but rothschildianum have something more for me. But I can't explain it.

I like a lot sanderianum. I love rothschildianum.

@slippertalker: King and graceful Queen, I like this point of view!

 

[Chicago Chad]

Ummm..ever read Orchid Fever?

Yep. It's fantastic.

If you took away the long petals, sanderianum is a dog of a flower. Terrible dorsal and awful shoulders in the petals. Breeding will improve that to some degree but never to the extent where it will match rothschildianum for shape and flower size (petal length aside).

Ouch. Some people, judges especially, will always prefer symmetry, and in many flowers I do as well. But there are also species that do not lend themselves to this sort of critique. sangii and sanderianum are some that come to mind. I think by trying to line breed these traits in or out of a species, it also causes the plant to loose something. When its gone it is hard to put your finger on it, but there is certainly an artificial look to it for me. Please check Ayreon's Roth post for an excellent example.

I would prefer any 'wild' sanderianum, twisted dorsal and all over any roth, whether it was extensively line bred or not. It all comes down to what you think makes a good flower.

Hypothetically, if sandies did not have the petal length that they do, I would not be interested in them either.

 

[emydura]

Ouch. Some people, judges especially, will always prefer symmetry, and in many flowers I do as well. But there are also species that do not lend themselves to this sort of critique. sangii and sanderianum are some that come to mind. I think by trying to line breed these traits in or out of a species, it also causes the plant to loose something. When its gone it is hard to put your finger on it, but there is certainly an artificial look to it for me. Please check Ayreon's Roth post for an excellent example.

I would prefer any 'wild' sanderianum, twisted dorsal and all over any roth, whether it was extensively line bred or not. It all comes down to what you think makes a good flower.

Hypothetically, if sandies did not have the petal length that they do, I would not be interested in them either.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have a flowering size sanderianum in my collection. I was just pointing out that it will never have the symmetry of a roth, hence will never receive the high number of awards it achieves. Rothschildianum is perfection in every sense whereas sanderianum just has amazing long petals.

The only real way to greatly improve the shape of sanderianum is to include species such as roths and then backcross it with sanderianum. Hopefully some will achieve sanderianum petal length's but with much better shaped flowers. But then it is no longer a species.

 

[jtrmd]

Looks like a hybrid to me,but its a keeper either way.It looks too good to be sanderianum,because most of them are just plain ugly! I divided mine down to a little growth and traded a plant I grew for over ten yrs to bloom.When it did I wanted to barf.LOL!I think those Kemp Towers I bloomed and trashed were better looking.

 

[The Orchid Boy]

Thanks for all your points of view.

Can you really "improve" a flower through breeding? Maybe to our eyes it may look better but plants produce flowers to attract pollinators not to be awarded symmetry awards. If I was a pollinater flying, I think sanderianum blooms would catch my eye before rothschildianum. Those long petals swaying and shimmiering in the breeze... pollinaters don't care about symmetry. I agree that some flowers don't need symmetry as much as others. And Ayreons roth... well, it looks sick, I really don't care for it at all.

 

[Trithor]

With the amount of spots that 'graceful queen' has, she may need a good dermatologist!

 

[emydura]

Thanks for all your points of view.

Can you really "improve" a flower through breeding? Maybe to our eyes it may look better but plants produce flowers to attract pollinators not to be awarded symmetry awards. If I was a pollinater flying, I think sanderianum blooms would catch my eye before rothschildianum. Those long petals swaying and shimmiering in the breeze... pollinaters don't care about symmetry. I agree that some flowers don't need symmetry as much as others. And Ayreons roth... well, it looks sick, I really don't care for it at all.

I don't understand your reference to pollinators. Breeders are trying to improves the flowers so they are more attractive to our eyes, not the pollinators. In fact, improving the flowers could even make them less attractive to pollinators.

As for Ayreons roth. That clone looks like the old style that has not been selectively bred and hence retains the 'wild' look. So there you go. You prefer the roths that have been improved by selective breeding. oke:

 

[ehanes7612]

supposedly sanderianum crossed with other sanderianum is difficult to get seed. Sam had a run on flasks a decade ago but i havent seen much breeding from him lately or anyone else..and from what i understand from that breeding a decade ago..produced mediocre results...i bloomed out a few and they were okay...just nothing i would write home about

 

[Justin]

The strain Leo was selling were better, and darker. I flowered one that was really good.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27529&highlight=sanderianum+humidity

 

[The Orchid Boy]

I don't understand your reference to pollinators. Breeders are trying to improves the flowers so they are more attractive to our eyes, not the pollinators. In fact, improving the flowers could even make them less attractive to pollinators.

As for Ayreons roth. That clone looks like the old style that has not been selectively bred and hence retains the 'wild' look. So there you go. You prefer the roths that have been improved by selective breeding. oke:

I was refering to roths vs. sandies, about which one would seem to me to attract more pollinaters. Anyway.....

So maybe I'm picky about roths, I'm less picky about sanderianums. Now I think I'm really going to start ameateur breeding sanderianums, I'm young and have got my whole life ahead of me to do it. The pictures I've seen of Leo's sandies are a lot nicer than others I've seen and I have one now.

 

[eggshells]

I was refering to roths vs. sandies, about which one would seem to me to attract more pollinaters. Anyway.....

So maybe I'm picky about roths, I'm less picky about sanderianums. Now I think I'm really going to start ameateur breeding sanderianums, I'm young and have got my whole life ahead of me to do it. The pictures I've seen of Leo's sandies are a lot nicer than others I've seen and I have one now.

Different species attract different pollinators. It is the way of the plant to not compete with other plants for pollinators attention. Paph rothschildianum, I think resembles grasshoppers egg in the staminode to attract its pollinators. While sanderianum.. I dont know? Maybe uses their long petals to flag whatever its pollinator. I have also read somewhere that sanderianum secretes sweet dew or something.