Please, help with ID!!!!
- Thread starter SuperPaph
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Paph. Sue Worth (sukhakulii x charleswothii) (maybe) x charleswothii - i.e. 2/3 charles x 1/3 sukh?
Happypaphy7
Paphlover
I would think backcrossing a charlesworthii primary to charlesworthii would result in something that looks a lot more like charlesworthii.
This looks more like a primary or something with charlesworthii as one parent. Or surprisingly it might even be something more complex that it looks.
I saw a hybrid that has villosum, charlesworthii and a few barbata species all jumbled up and looked just like this as well.
charlesworthii , ? henryanum???
As I scarely can be described neither as a hybroholic nor as a hybridophiliac, I'm aware of threading on very thin ice here. But if one looks at the photos of P. Sue Worth, published online - one might be inclined to describe SuperPaph's flower as exactly a P. Sue Worth, "that looks a lot more like charlesworthii"!
P. Doll's Kobold (charlesworthii x henryanum) bears no resemblance at all to SuperPaph's flower. But talking about complex hybrids, I wonder, what the outcome would be, if one crossed P. King Charles with sukhakulii?
It's all pure speculation. No reliable tag = no reliable ID.
How true, this is my sight too. It's almost impossible to name a plant of a no name cross by its photo.
In my eyes this isn't a position verging the dysphoric but a kind of sense of reality. I won't say this might not happen.....but I think the probability is very, very low this could happen, because even siblings don't look identically. This is the way with plants as well as with human beings.
Who wants to speculate....o.k can do it. But this is just my opinion.....who buys a hybrid with no name should accept it and write on the tag 'P. X ?' or 'P. hybrid' .
Last edited:
Rudolf, as always you are right! I bend to my elders: Paphiopedilum hybrid NOID
Dysphoria? Really? Naaaah....more like “reality”.
1. Sexual reproduction can result in a wide range of characteristics, including appearance. Two of the same plant can look substantially different.
2. Culture can also affect affect appearance, so two identical clones can look different if grown differently.
3. Similar, but different hybrids can have similar characteristics.
4. By definition, A x (B x C), (A x B) x C, and (A x C) x B are different hybrids, but, potentially having similar genetics, might appear similar.
The only time I have any level of confidence in identifying a “lost tag” plant is if I know I had it in my collection, but cannot locate it elsewhere.
I stand corrected!
This is a very cerebral thread indeed. No one can predict and name with certainty what a hybrid is based on a picture. And all comments above are indeed valid. One charlesworthii cross can look like every other charlesworthii hybrid out there. And everything in between.
However, one can always make an educated guess and deduct from the individual parts moving up to the sum. The good thing about paphs is that the background species has such strong genes that it will be expressed either dominantly or melded into the other parent, rarely disappearing.
In this case, here is a breakdown:
Dorsal sepal = dominated by charlesworthii pink on white colour and shape. This means that the other parent is less dominant in DS (therefore excludes complex paphs and white brachys)
Petals = here is the very tricky part... colour is brown of charlesworthii but the spotting is from other parent... you can see it on henryanums, sukhakulii and wardii.
Pouch = here the pouch resembles the charlesworthii in shape and colour, with the opening slightly smaller and the overall length slightly longer, possibly a contribution of the other parent. Since dominant colour of henryanum's pink pouch is missing, it is ruled out.
Staminode = a white staminode means this is still a primary hybrid from charlesworthii as it dissappears usually in F2, and most likely not from a vini line (although there are exceptions)
So put together all that, we can easily rule out the complex paphs, henryanum, wardii, vinis and many species as the other parent .... and we are left with sukhakulii.
So Alex, in all likelihood, and based on elementary analysis, it could be Paph. Sue Worth after all (clap clap Jens).
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Sherlock Holmes)
Advocatus Diaboli!
However, one can always make an educated guess and deduct from the individual parts moving up to the sum. The good thing about paphs is that the background species has such strong genes that it will be expressed either dominantly or melded into the other parent, rarely disappearing.
In this case, here is a breakdown:
Dorsal sepal = dominated by charlesworthii pink on white colour and shape. This means that the other parent is less dominant in DS (therefore excludes complex paphs and white brachys)
Petals = here is the very tricky part... colour is brown of charlesworthii but the spotting is from other parent... you can see it on henryanums, sukhakulii and wardii.
Pouch = here the pouch resembles the charlesworthii in shape and colour, with the opening slightly smaller and the overall length slightly longer, possibly a contribution of the other parent. Since dominant colour of henryanum's pink pouch is missing, it is ruled out.
Staminode = a white staminode means this is still a primary hybrid from charlesworthii as it dissappears usually in F2, and most likely not from a vini line (although there are exceptions)
So put together all that, we can easily rule out the complex paphs, henryanum, wardii, vinis and many species as the other parent .... and we are left with sukhakulii.
So Alex, in all likelihood, and based on elementary analysis, it could be Paph. Sue Worth after all (clap clap Jens).
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Sherlock Holmes)
Advocatus Diaboli!
Leslie, chapeau to your remarkable thoughts.......and yourself made some important limitations to focus on and consider only primary hybrids. In the end you said could be......if I said couln't be it would be the same......so we are not really one step further.
In my eyes the only thing which is very certain with this hybrid is P. charlesworthii as one of the parents.
I completely agree with everyone LOL. I was just processing what could be, will be.
Happypaphy7
Paphlover
Leslie, I'll have to point one thing out regarding your staminode section above.
Although you mentioned "exception", (vini maudiae type hybrid x charlesworthii) most often come out with very dark glossy red wine flower with white staminode. I have seen many of such crosses and to me, it was the norm rather than the exception.
Also, a few years ago, I bought a bunch of vini x charlesworthii. One of them turned out looking like a giant charlesworthii, which was very surprising! I should have kept that one as an oddity, but at the time, I was only into very dark clones, so I ended up giving it away.
At the end though, this flower (although we don't know for sure, of course) does look like a primary hybrid of charlesworthii. Then, again, its real genetic make up might surprise us all.
Although you mentioned "exception", (vini maudiae type hybrid x charlesworthii) most often come out with very dark glossy red wine flower with white staminode. I have seen many of such crosses and to me, it was the norm rather than the exception.
Also, a few years ago, I bought a bunch of vini x charlesworthii. One of them turned out looking like a giant charlesworthii, which was very surprising! I should have kept that one as an oddity, but at the time, I was only into very dark clones, so I ended up giving it away.
At the end though, this flower (although we don't know for sure, of course) does look like a primary hybrid of charlesworthii. Then, again, its real genetic make up might surprise us all.
Good personal observation and valuable information for us.
I had seen and observed this F1 (vini x charles) progeny with white staminodes often as well (in shows and judges, not by personal growing).
What I meant and which wasn't very clear in my post was that the white staminode often disappears in the F2 generation of the line, not in F1. Because of that disapperance by F2 (as well as lack of deep red colour in the other floral parts), I ruled out vini line from this flower. Your observation that one flower from that F1 looked like a giant charlesworthii is very interesting and noted.
Again, this deduction and analysis is a fun exercise for reasoning the possible ancestry of an unknown flower, but not an ID confirmation.
As Ray stated in his post, the only way we have a positive ID is if we found a lost tag that could belong to this plant. Which brings us back to the exercise. Could that tag be this flower??
Happypaphy7
Paphlover
Leslie,
Oops, sorry. I read your previous post again and I didn't understand it right the first time. It was too late into the night and my brain must have been fried. hahaha
Let me add one more interesting observation regarding the same topic. So, I have two plants of (Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend). Iko Iko is (Red Czar x charlesworthii). Red Czar is a vini hybrid consisting only of babarta species. Satchel's Legend is also a vini hybrid but very different from typical maudiae type hybrids in its composition since it does not involve lawrenceanum or curtisii. It has about equal shots of sukhakulii, wardii, callosum and a smaller shot of purpuratum. Both of my plants have bloomed with flowers that look pretty much the same as any of the vini x Charlie hybrids I've seen to a point where you would think they are vini x Charlie if you were looking at the flower without looking at the tag.
Very dark highly glossy flower with white staminode.
I think the goal of making such a cross is to maintain the dark shiny flower of Charlie x vini hybrid while bumping up the overall flower size and flatten out the dorsal since dorsal curling at either the base or the entire length of the sides seem typical.
One of my two plants of Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend, in my opinion, lives up to the breeder's ideal for the cross since it has relatively large full dark shiny flower with flat round dorsal that stays flat the time. The other pant has a flower that looks about the typical of vini x Charlie. That annoying curling back kicks in a few days after the flower opens up fully.
I love these hybrids because they grow and bloom so well and it's the closest thing to charlesworthii which has been a pain in the butt for me. lol
About that special odd ball case of the charlesworthii x vini (it was Hsinying Rubyweb something. These were very much common in the market a few years ago) whose flower looked like a charlesworthii on steroid, it also had leaves that were different. Typically, these hybrids tend to have narrower and darker, especially the underside of the leaves, leaves compared to maudiae type hybrids. That plant, though, had leaves that look more like typical maudiae hybrid, wide oval shape and the tone of green was much much lighter.
Interestingly, one of my (Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend) plant has this similar leaves, wide and light green and dark green mottling, whereas the other plant has long narrow dark leaves.
Oops, sorry. I read your previous post again and I didn't understand it right the first time. It was too late into the night and my brain must have been fried. hahaha
Let me add one more interesting observation regarding the same topic. So, I have two plants of (Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend). Iko Iko is (Red Czar x charlesworthii). Red Czar is a vini hybrid consisting only of babarta species. Satchel's Legend is also a vini hybrid but very different from typical maudiae type hybrids in its composition since it does not involve lawrenceanum or curtisii. It has about equal shots of sukhakulii, wardii, callosum and a smaller shot of purpuratum. Both of my plants have bloomed with flowers that look pretty much the same as any of the vini x Charlie hybrids I've seen to a point where you would think they are vini x Charlie if you were looking at the flower without looking at the tag.
Very dark highly glossy flower with white staminode.
I think the goal of making such a cross is to maintain the dark shiny flower of Charlie x vini hybrid while bumping up the overall flower size and flatten out the dorsal since dorsal curling at either the base or the entire length of the sides seem typical.
One of my two plants of Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend, in my opinion, lives up to the breeder's ideal for the cross since it has relatively large full dark shiny flower with flat round dorsal that stays flat the time. The other pant has a flower that looks about the typical of vini x Charlie. That annoying curling back kicks in a few days after the flower opens up fully.
I love these hybrids because they grow and bloom so well and it's the closest thing to charlesworthii which has been a pain in the butt for me. lol
About that special odd ball case of the charlesworthii x vini (it was Hsinying Rubyweb something. These were very much common in the market a few years ago) whose flower looked like a charlesworthii on steroid, it also had leaves that were different. Typically, these hybrids tend to have narrower and darker, especially the underside of the leaves, leaves compared to maudiae type hybrids. That plant, though, had leaves that look more like typical maudiae hybrid, wide oval shape and the tone of green was much much lighter.
Interestingly, one of my (Iko Iko x Satchel's Legend) plant has this similar leaves, wide and light green and dark green mottling, whereas the other plant has long narrow dark leaves.
Last edited:
Fascinating. It was this kind of F2 white staminodes that I quoted the exception.
A great charlesworthii crossed with a great vini produces great deep red big round flowers. One look at Marriot Orchid’s website and my mouth waters!
A great charlesworthii crossed with a great vini produces great deep red big round flowers. One look at Marriot Orchid’s website and my mouth waters!
Similar threads
