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

[Leo_5313]

Good markings.

 

[Felix]

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

I suspect that P. sanderianum genes should be highly recessive here. Compare the variability of Paph. Prince Edward of York for example.
It just seems more likely to me that this hybrid is mislabeled.

 

[phraggy]

Whatever this is it is a beautiful multifloral,

Ed

 

[emydura]

I suspect that P. sanderianum genes should be highly recessive here. Compare the variability of Paph. Prince Edward of York for example.
It just seems more likely to me that this hybrid is mislabeled.

Here are two seedlings from the same flask from a cross Robert did. This is from a cross involving three species. The cross in this thread has five species, so can you imagine the potential outcomes. When it comes to these complex hybrids just about anything is possible. Don't expect a generic outcome.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13552&highlight=Fumimasa+Sugiyama

 

[Felix]

Here are two seedlings from the same flask from a cross Robert did. This is from a cross involving three species. The cross in this thread has five species, so can you imagine the potential outcomes. When it comes to these complex hybrids just about anything is possible. Don't expect a generic outcome.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13552&highlight=Fumimasa+Sugiyama

Yes, I understand that there is variability, but somehow following genetical logic. For example, the cited thread with two different seedlings of Paph. Rothschilds' Wings (platyphyllum x sanderianum) x rothschildianum has possible variation from platyphyllum x rothschildianum to sanderianum x rothschildianum. To me, the two flowering exemples there within this variation.
The first one goes in direction of sanderianum x rothschildianum, the second is quite much platyphyllum x rothschildianum.
But there is always a decent part of rothschildianum visible (because it must be 50 % genetically).

Now we have this hybrid here: Paphiopedilum ( Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand Lady ) x sanderianum. Also there is variation in the genetic outcome, it must be at least 50 % sanderianum genetically (I'm assuming both parents have the same ploidy). Of course phenotype and genotype can differ a lot, but looking at other Paph. sanderianum - hybrids (e.g. primary hybrids with also 50 % sanderianum genetically), it doesn't seem to be recessive concerning the flower, but co-dominant. Both parents allels express their influence on the petal lenght for example.
I don't see the influence of Paph. sanderianum here, which causes my doubt that it may be mislabeled (but beautiful anyway!).

 

[Brabantia]

It seems to me that you have a very nice Paph. collection and that you control their cultures very well!

 

[Drorchid]

Yes, I understand that there is variability, but somehow following genetical logic. For example, the cited thread with two different seedlings of Paph. Rothschilds' Wings (platyphyllum x sanderianum) x rothschildianum has possible variation from platyphyllum x rothschildianum to sanderianum x rothschildianum. To me, the two flowering exemples there within this variation.
The first one goes in direction of sanderianum x rothschildianum, the second is quite much platyphyllum x rothschildianum.
But there is always a decent part of rothschildianum visible (because it must be 50 % genetically).

Now we have this hybrid here: Paphiopedilum ( Deena Nicole x Booth's Sand Lady ) x sanderianum. Also there is variation in the genetic outcome, it must be at least 50 % sanderianum genetically (I'm assuming both parents have the same ploidy). Of course phenotype and genotype can differ a lot, but looking at other Paph. sanderianum - hybrids (e.g. primary hybrids with also 50 % sanderianum genetically), it doesn't seem to be recessive concerning the flower, but co-dominant. Both parents allels express their influence on the petal lenght for example.
I don't see the influence of Paph. sanderianum here, which causes my doubt that it may be mislabeled (but beautiful anyway!).

I agree with Felix!

Robert