Paphiopedilum ( Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand Lady ) x sanderianum

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

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

vandacee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
441
Reaction score
131
Location
France
Paphiopedilum ( Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand Lady ) x sanderianum

deena1.jpg


deena2.jpg
 
Very nice flowers! I am surprised, too, that the one dose of roth is still quite obvious from 3 generations ago, while the two later portions of sanderianum are not very evident.
 
Very nice flowers! I am surprised, too, that the one dose of roth is still quite obvious from 3 generations ago, while the two later portions of sanderianum are not very evident.

Deena Nicole = philippinense x glanduliferum var. praestans
Booth's Sand Lady = Lady Isabel x sanderianum

It is fragrant like a rothschildianum !
 
Deena Nicole = philippinense x glanduliferum var. praestans
Booth's Sand Lady = Lady Isabel x sanderianum

It is fragrant like a rothschildianum !

Which means this hybrid is:

62.5% sanderianum
12.5% philippinense
12.5% praestans
6.25% stonei
6.25% rothschildianum

Yes, I would also expect to see it look more like a Paph. sanderianum, and less like a rothschildianum. This cross almost looks like it is 50% rothschildianum! Interesting result!

Robert
 
Which means this hybrid is:

62.5% sanderianum
12.5% philippinense
12.5% praestans
6.25% stonei
6.25% rothschildianum

Yes, I would also expect to see it look more like a Paph. sanderianum, and less like a rothschildianum. This cross almost looks like it is 50% rothschildianum! Interesting result!

Robert

I thought that for more sandy to show itself, sandy needs to be one of the parents, not just a majority from the background. So even though Booth's Sands lady would contribute more than 50% sanderianum, its not enough for the long petalled traits to come through. Back crossing so there is 50% sandy not really helpful in preserving the long-petal trait (e.g. Angel Hair x PEOY = 50% sandy, but looks more like long petalled St. Swithin).

Or maybe the Booth's Sands lady used a PEOY as a parent, and not a true sanderianum?
 
I thought that for more sandy to show itself, sandy needs to be one of the parents, not just a majority from the background. So even though Booth's Sands lady would contribute more than 50% sanderianum, its not enough for the long petalled traits to come through. Back crossing so there is 50% sandy not really helpful in preserving the long-petal trait (e.g. Angel Hair x PEOY = 50% sandy, but looks more like long petalled St. Swithin).

Or maybe the Booth's Sands lady used a PEOY as a parent, and not a true sanderianum?

This cross was Paph. (Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand Lady ) x (sanderianum)

so Paph. sanderianum was one of the parents, and it is in the background of the other parent! I have seen crosses with only 50% sanderianum (as it was also one of the parents), like Paph. Kolosand, Paph. Fumimasa Sugiyama, Paph. Michael Koopowitz, Paph. Prince Edward of York, Paph. Sander's Pride etc..that look more like "sanderianum" than this cross..

I just find it interesting that in this cross, Paph. rothschildianum seems to be so dominant (even though it is only 6.25% of the cross).

Robert
 
This cross was Paph. (Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand dy ) x (sanderianum)



I just find it interesting that in this cross, Paph. rothschildianum seems to be so dominant (even though it is only 6.25% of the cross).

Robert

Just chance. If you flowered a whole heap of these, most would not look like this. I think this is an outlier. Having said that, with five species involved in the mix, you will see some incredible variation.
 
A nice hybrid, but there should be more Paph. sanderianum - influence. Though there is variation of course, there must be at least 50% sanderianum. I don't really see it.
 
A nice hybrid, but there should be more Paph. sanderianum - influence. Though there is variation of course, there must be at least 50% sanderianum. I don't really see it.

Genetically that may be correct, but in terms of the phenotype that is displayed, that statement is incorrect.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top