Phrag. brasiliense

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Drorchid, Oct 6, 2006.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Oct 10, 2006 #21

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,298
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    When you place them in that order, it certainly shows the possibility. It would be fun to take sargentianum & pearcei into a morphing software, and see what happens 1/2 way between. Not that genectics are like that, but....
     
  2. Oct 17, 2006 #22

    labskaus

    labskaus

    labskaus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Germany
    there seems to be an almost consensus that brasiliense is a hybrid of lindleyanum with something from the lorifolium section.

    I do agree with Olaf that there is essentially no new information out and everything going on here is speculation. So, let's speculate :)

    Regarding brasiliense being Patty McHale: wouldn't pearcei heavily influence plant size and isn't Patty a much smaller plant than brasiliense? I'm just thinking of Phrag. Olaf Gruss, which is a pretty compact plant.

    The unsimilarity of Phrag. Hochgern and brasiliense, which I can't state of because I haven't seen any photos of Hochgern or Mem. Adele Bishop yet: the original cross was lindleyanum x vittatum; how would the reverse cross vittatum x lindleyanum come out? Possibly more towards the pollen parent (read: more like brasiliense)? What exactly are the differences between Hochgern and brasiliense?

    Robs Phragweb page has some nice pics of Phrag. Yu-Fu Liu and the unregistered sargentianum x caricinum. To me they look pretty similar to brasiliense, and caricinum would be a likely parent as much as richteri and more than pearcei. I don't know wether Dungs and Pabst recording of caricinum from Brazil was an error or if this species has been found in Brazil. Brazilians on this forum might know better.
    Another candidate parent would be christiansenianum. Funny enough, this species has been in cultivation for decades and only recently been rediscovered in western Brazil. Hope there is an analogy to brasiliense.

    On the other hand, brasiliense has a pretty large synsepal, and that would in my eyes lead to vittatum as one parent, wouldn't it?

    I'm currently leaning towards a hybrid origin of brasiliense, but all options are still out. Looking forward to those F2 seedlings, they may tell us more.

    Cheers, Carsten
     
  3. Nov 14, 2006 #23
    Hi Carsten,

    Sorry I had not read your reply untill now, you had some good points, the more I think about it, I think that Phrag. christiansenianum may be a good candidate as one of the parents of Phrag. brasiliense (the other parent being Phrag. lindleyanum or sargentianum). If Phrag. pearcei would be one of the parents it does not explain the auricula (pointy projections along the opening of the lip) that Phrag. brasiliense has. Phrag. christiansenianum does have these auricula. Also the spotting pattern of Phrag. christiansenianum and the staminode fit as a possible parent.

    Olaf Gruss had some good pictures in his article in the Oct/Dec 2003 Orchid Digest of Phrag. christiansenianum. Olaf what do you think of this idea that Phrag. brasiliense is a natural hybrid of Phrag. christiansenianum x lindleyanum. I know that Olaf wrote that Phrag. christiansenianum is native to Colombia, but the exact location is unknown, but Carsten mentions that it has been found in western Brazil, can anyone verify that? If so it would be a good candiidate as a parent for phrag. brasiliense.

    Robert
     
  4. Nov 14, 2006 #24

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    to be a hybrid or not to be a hybrid

    Robert,

    the fact that these are so very different (just look at the pouches) proves that we are dealing with a hybrid. Tell Jerry about Mendel's laws (and say hello to Yoko, Jason and the rest of the Orchids Limited crew for me.)

    regards
    Guido

     
  5. Nov 14, 2006 #25
    Hi Guido,

    I will say hello to them. I agree with you that I think what we call Phrag. brasiliense is a hybnid (That is why I posted the picture above). The 2 questions that I have are:

    #1 is it a a man made or a natural hybrid.?
    Jerry is still 100% convinced that is came from Brazil, and was collected in the wild. Unitll recently he was also convinced that it was a true species, but now even he is leaning towards it being a natural hybrid. I can go either way regarding it being a natural hybrid or a man made hybrid...Untill recently I was leaning towards it being the same as Phrag. Patti MacHale (= pearcei x sargentianum), and thus it would be a man made hybrid as both parental species do not grow in the same location, but now that I have compared it to pictures of the man made hybrid Patti MacHale I dont believe this to be the case anymore.

    #2 if it is a hybrid; what are the parents. If we can identify the parent species we can come one step closer to speculating if it is a man made or a natural hybrid (If both parent species do not grow in the same location, say one in Peru, and the other in western Brazil, we can rule out it ever being a natural hybrid). But for now I think we can only speculate what it is, untill someone actually discovers it in Brazil, but in the meantime it does not hurt to speculate...

    Robert
     
  6. Nov 14, 2006 #26

    ORG

    ORG

    ORG

    Guest

    Dear Robert and also Guido,
    I can agree more and more with your thoughts about brasiliense.
    But let us wait for more plants in the future then we can make new speculations about the parents of Brasiliense.
    Phrag. christiansenianum is really a possibility as one parent. Takase has shown some years ago a similar plant from Brazil which looks like.
    The other parent is easier, Phrag. sargentianum or lindleyanum var. sargentianum.

    Best greetings

    Olaf
     
  7. Nov 16, 2006 #27

    Braem

    Braem

    Braem

    Guest

    brasiliense

    Robert,

    your question #1: I am putting my money on "man made" or lets call it anthropogenous :evil:

    I have information about the population of slippers at the site where P. brasiliense was allegedly collected. My people tell me that all the plants there are true P. vittatum. I don't know who sold the plants to Jerry ... and where that person got then from. Until we know that, there is nothing more to say. But I will repeat that as soon as I and some other people saw the picture, the unanymous opinion was (and is) that P. brasiliense is a hybrid, and as it has not been "found" anymore, it very probably is.

    your question #2: ??? You know how difficult it is to tell the parentage of a hybrid. A wild guess would be that a plant of the lindleyanum/sargentianum group is involved. The twisted petals remind me of P. vittatum. Have the DNA done, and compare. It would not be the final proof, but it would give us an idea of what COULD be involved.

    and remember Jerry also maintained for a very long time that P. amazonica was a good autonomous species.

    Guido



     
  8. Nov 4, 2008 #28

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Lavaltrie, Québec, Canada (Z4)
    I did miss that very interesting thread...
    Robert do you have more photo of the seedlings flowers?
     
  9. Nov 4, 2008 #29
    Here you go (I accidentally deleted some of my pictures from my original posting):

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This is my latest hypothesis regarding Phrag. brasiliense, I think, if Phrag. brasiliense is a natural hybrid and not a man made hybrid it could be the hybrid between these 2 species: sargentianum (or lindleyanum) and christiansenianum; both occur in the same area of Brazil (Picture of Phrag. christiansenianum from Carsten aka Labskous). If you look at Phrag. brasiliense it shares morphological traits of both parents.

    [​IMG]

    Robert
     
  10. Nov 5, 2008 #30

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Lavaltrie, Québec, Canada (Z4)
    Many thanks for the photos Robert,
    After finding that taxonomic part on the forum, I did spent many hours on those threads yesterday evening, hours of fun... Very interesting!
    I will need to have a good look at those photos and think about that.... I’ll be back soon!
     
  11. Nov 5, 2008 #31

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,157
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    Very interesting.
    When I first saw the OL listing of Phrag Mardi Gras I was interested because I had never heard of brasiliense. I thought the roundness and darkness of the pouch was distinctive and the dark twisting petals also. The consistent white area is also a distinct feature. I can see the influence of the christiansenianum on the staminode but w/out researching the ranges could not guess if the brasiliense is a hybrid. I recommend you cross it w/ phrag Jason Fischer! :D Yay besseae hybrids!
     
  12. Nov 9, 2008 #32

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Phrag-Plus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Lavaltrie, Québec, Canada (Z4)
    [​IMG]

    Robert[/QUOTE]

    Hi Robert,
    I will not bring too much in this thread, everything is already said!
    The 2 seedlings are showing me than the mother plant is not a specie for sure, neither a primary hybrid for me. I believe and agreeing than lindleyanum (sargenteanum) is involved in this cross with two or more other species. It seems to have some boissierianum (richterii) influence on the first seedling... But very difficult to say...

    If I’m looking at the picture of the mother plants posted in this thread and the picture use for the description of the “specie” in the Orchid Digest vol.67 (4). I’m having the impression than the seedlings identified as “Phragbrasiliensesseedling2flower” was the one use for the description? Did you identify “Phragbrasiliensesseedling2flower” as brasiliense???

    You are proposing “christiansenianum” as possible parentage, why proposing a “species” of unknown origin? Is it because the conviction of a wild collected specimen?

    (Other subject; I was please to see the photo ‘brasRH”; I was always wondering from witch phenotype of sargenteanum Sorcerer’s Apprentice “Lothar AM/AOS” was come from. I may have a clue now...?)
     
  13. Nov 9, 2008 #33
    I love it what ever it is, cause we cannot give "beauty" a name...;)
     

Share This Page



arrow_white