Roths

[cattmad]

i think Oz are likely to have pretty good provenance on their breeding stock

Exactly, people looking at photos on the Internet and comparing photos shouldn't be making assertions that something is not true to name. OZ has one of the best names in the business and i don't think they deserve to have that questioned when nothing in the photos shows to be anything but roth

And we wonder why nurseries continue to go out of business

 

[Fabrice]

Accuse without evidence is not correct of course.

But I think for the interest of the forum, this is still interesting to discuss. The argument referring to the celebrity of a company is not really recevable.
I could sadly name some famous breeders what were (are) not really honest with label...

About those 2 flowers, petals form are not representative of the rothschildianum specie as I see it. But the selection to obtain very wide petals is probably the reason of this and no doubt they are roth (ugly for my taste)

 

[paphioland]

i think Oz are likely to have pretty good provenance on their breeding stock

They do but mistakes can happen. But this is clearly Roth. There is no reason to think this is a hybrid. These crosses all look similar. Even the individual Roth crosses have distinctive looks. If this were some very complicated Roth hybrid all the progeny would look different. So this is not stepping on toes. You are just wrong. Tell me what features besides pictures you've seen on the internet that make you think that these are not roths?

 

[paphioland]

Accuse without evidence is not correct of course.

But I think for the interest of the forum, this is still interesting to discuss. The argument referring to the celebrity of a company is not really recevable.
I could sadly name some famous breeders what were (are) not really honest with label...

About those 2 flowers, petals form are not representative of the rothschildianum specie as I see it. But the selection to obtain very wide petals is probably the reason of this and no doubt they are roth (ugly for my taste)

There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals. Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals. These more common measurements in the newer crosses are not unreasonable at all with selection. It is hard for me to even have this conversation because it is ridiculous.

 

[Mocchaccino]

They do but mistakes can happen. But this is clearly Roth. There is no reason to think this is a hybrid. These crosses all look similar. Even the individual Roth crosses have distinctive looks. If this were some very complicated Roth hybrid all the progeny would look different. So this is not stepping on toes. You are just wrong. Tell me what features besides pictures you've seen on the internet that make you think that these are not roths?

I am with you. Back cross would give offsprings at least certain phenotypic variations.

 

[Fabrice]

There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals.

Right, good point for you.

Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals.

Right too (just for some exceptional clones) but not this particular shape of petals.
And I just supposed one thing. To search more and more wide could give this particular petals shape. Because I don't think parentage of this breeding line have this particular petals shape... So?
And I'll say even more I don't think it's a good thing for the next generation. But I'm not breeder...

These more common measurements in the newer crosses are not unreasonable at all with selection. It is hard for me to even have this conversation because it is ridiculous.

You like that, not me. I don't see what is ridiculous. Just a matter of taste and probably too a different vision of what may be the selection.

 

[paphioland]

Right, good point for you.



Right too (just for some exceptional clones) but not this particular shape of petals.
And I just supposed one thing. To search more and more wide could give this particular petals shape. Because I don't think parentage of this breeding line have this particular petals shape... So?
And I'll say even more I don't think it's a good thing for the next generation. But I'm not breeder...



You like that, not me. I don't see what is ridiculous. Just a matter of taste and probably too a different vision of what may be the selection.

No the rediculous part it that we are debating whether these are roths or not.

My view is that bigger is better as long as it is reasonably proportional to the rest of the flower. If roths had 2.5 cm petals with a 40 cm ns you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Fabrice]

No the rediculous part it that we are debating whether these are roths or not.

My view is that bigger is better as long as it is reasonably proportional to the rest of the flower. If roths had 2.5 cm petals with a 40 cm ns you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Ok. So, we can tell it's a roth. for sure (I agree) but with an usual petals shape that we like or not. Do you agree with that?

 

[paphioland]

Ok. So, we can tell it's a roth. for sure (I agree) but with an usual petals shape that we like or not. Do you agree with that?

There are a bunch of things I'm not crazy about on that flower but I'm really picky. The thicker is better than thin. I'd like it better if the petals were longer as well. The dorsal does not look that large either in the pics making the petals seem disproportionally thick. So a bigger dorsal and synsepal would help. I think proportions matter as well as size of the segments.

Check out my 'drogon' clone that has just as thick petals with 31 ns. If the ns were 38-40 would look even better.

 

[Fabrice]

You Drogon is nicer than those 2 plants but I have definitely a problem with the very thick base of the petals. I find it brokes the general harmony of the flower.

But I never saw this kind of flowers in reality. Just in pictures what it does a big difference.

edit: I wanted to tell thick, not thin...

 

[cattmad]

People need to understand that there is variations in Roths, between crosses and even within sib crosses. Also clones like drogon are extremely select and are probably one in several hundreds of not thousands and expecting every roth to have the same petal form is unrealistic.

 

[Fabrice]

There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals. Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals.

I said right. But on the Paphiopedilum in Taiwan book VI, there's a picture of Paphiopedilum Sunlight Rothschild 'Good Libe' 83/SM.

NS is 28.7, DS is 6.9 and PS is 2.3.

So, you're not completely right.

 

[paphioland]

I said right. But on the Paphiopedilum in Taiwan book VI, there's a picture of Paphiopedilum Sunlight Rothschild 'Good Libe' 83/SM.

NS is 28.7 and PS is 2.3.

So, you're not completely right.

Is that a complex Roth hybrid on both sides? Of course there is a point where you have 87.5% Roth or more it can look like a Roth. There is no way these are hybrids. I've seen many of each cross. There is no improvement in my mind using anything else over Roth alone when you have mostly Roth in background. Is lady Isabel nice yes. But keep crossing to Roth a few generations and I think just using Roth is nicer. There is no point. There hasn't been enough time even at oz generation wise to have some 93 % Roth hybrid. Just silliness.

 

[Fabrice]

You're talking to me about OZ. The subject is closed since some previous posts and we all agree to say those 2 blooms are roths.

I simply demonstrates that a hybrid with many Roths may look like a roth. with a similar size. And for some of them, it would be easy for a dishonest seller to sell it like roth. to a 'naive' buyer. And of course more expensive!

Sadly, there are many examples with many species (Phal bellina alba and violacea alba crossed with micholitzii during some generations and sell like specie is the 1st example I think)

 

[Fabrice]

But I agree with you. No interest for a breeder to add other specie in a breeding roth. line currently.

 

[My Green Pets]

1. Grab alcoholic drink of choice.

2. Go to beginning of this thread.

3. Every time you read the word 'roth', take a drink.

4. Post below that you have taken the Roth Challenge and attach a selfie.

 

[Stone]

Hey if you say it's a roth then it's a roth.
The down swept petal base (curve) is what raised doubts that it is pure in my mind.
I just have never seen it in a roth before but I have in many hybrids.



image upload no limit

 

[Stone]

Exactly, people looking at photos on the Internet and comparing photos shouldn't be making assertions that something is not true to name. OZ has one of the best names in the business and i don't think they deserve to have that questioned when nothing in the photos shows to be anything but roth

And we wonder why nurseries continue to go out of business

This is nonsense. It's no proof whatsoever that just because a nursery has a good reputation that they are beyond question.
Anything could have happened in the breeding line. Especially if any of the the progenitors of the cross came from Asia!
A non argument.

 

[paphioland]

Hey if you say it's a roth then it's a roth.
The down swept petal base (curve) is what raised doubts that it is pure in my mind.
I just have never seen it in a roth before but I have in many hybrids.



image upload no limit

I agree that it is not the most common stance. And labels can be moved anywhere. Even by customers. That stance does happen in roths though. Look at some of the Rex X mm. They had very downswept petals with shoulders . Like I think Frank smith and even crystelle.

 

[cattmad]

This is nonsense. It's no proof whatsoever that just because a nursery has a good reputation that they are beyond question.
Anything could have happened in the breeding line. Especially if any of the the progenitors of the cross came from Asia!
A non argument.

I'm not saying they are beyond question, im saying that someone who has never even flowered a roth or seen one in flower shouldn't be making statements like "there's no way that's a roth". You made a very direct statement.

Even TON flowers Roths with that petal stance, it is uncommon but not proof this is a hybrid.

Maybe I'm just getting peed off with the Internet taxanomist