The first AQ award in Taiwan

[Kevin]

Judges -and so do breeders also- prefer big, round and flat Paphiopedilum flowers. A lot of amateurs are following them. I do not, not always.

I like the reflecting dorsal of P. spicerianum very much! I also like wavily petals!

So I ask myself, why there are no complex Paphs bred of species as appletonianum, spicerianum, villosum, tigrinum, gratrixianum, ... with tubular dorsals?
IMO Paphs are not only made to photograph their front side, but to look at them as a three dimensional artwork.

As long as flatnes is a goal in breeding, some will do strange things as seen here in this thrad. Those flat "spicerianums" are not my favorites.

____variatio delectat__________,__fibre_____

I agree completely! I have a Paph. Lathmanianum that was scoffed at by one judge, because it had a reflexed dorsal. I was thinking - it's supposed to have a reflexed dorsal! But, again, flat is what's 'in'. Is the point of a hybrid to show the best characteristics of both parents? How many of the typical spicerianums with reflexed dorsals have been awared? Probably none. Even though it is a perfect example of the species, not an 'improvement'. But, people like trying to 'improve' on nature all the time. Impossible, as far as I'm concerned. Try putting some of the newest line-bred Phrag. besseaes into the wild. Would they survive? The were created they way they are for a reason.

By the way, the Paphs that got the AQ here are amazing, and very eye-catching, but if they are real spicerianums, they don't represent the species very well. What is considered in judging? Who's idea is it to award higher points to larger, bigger and flatter? Is this the goal, even if if the end result does not even look like the species any more? Not everyone has the same idea of 'improvement'. This, then gets into judging and personal bias. What might be 'in' today might not be 'in' tomorrow.

 

[paphioboy]

This thread has got interesting.. All this breeding hybrids that look very much like the real species and trying to pass them off as the naturally-occurring species is going to cause a lot of confusion for both the judges and hobbyists alike..

 

[Brabantia]

This thread has got interesting.. All this breeding hybrids that look very much like the real species and trying to pass them off as the naturally-occurring species is going to cause a lot of confusion for both the judges and hobbyists alike..

.... and a good opportunity to increase the prices.

 

[NYEric]

I'm glad Sanderianum has exposed us to the chance that the award was mis-awarded. No dis-credit to the grower. That said I wonder how he got $#itty thru the filters!

 

[SlipperFan]

Who do you think will win?

:rollhappy: If it's up to me, I myself will win.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

Although it has been years since I've bloomed a spicerianum, as I recall, there is a day or two when it first opens and the dorsal is flat...then it reflexes. Somewhere in my old photo albums should be a pic I took of a very ordinary spicerianum the day it opened fully, and the dorsal is quite flat...didn't stay that way for long, though.....

 

[tenman]

Second, there are things that are possible, and some others that are not possible within a species. For spicerianum, there is a semialbum, awarded by the AOS long time ago, I got a purple wild plant, an albino wild plant, I have seen some thousands wild plants in bloom, none with the flat dorsal as well... I know there is another purple flowered plant in Germany too...

So, on to the most important question...where are the selfings of the purple one and the albino one you've been making to share with the rest of us??????

And how about some pics of those?????

 

[cnycharles]

And in Taiwan as well, we have the Phalaenopsis tetraspis C-1 and Specios, that are the most blatant scam. A Taiwanese grower published pictures of his breeding of corningiana x tetraspis in the early 90's, then this cross has NEVER been registered, and the same flowers, same cross are now sold as tetraspis C-1...

hello sanderianum,
I'm not trying to discount what you are saying, I'm just hoping for clarification. I have been told that an american taxonomist had looked at tetraspis c#1 and said that it was speciosa. I haven't received permission to pass along details other than that; if I do I will. Do you have any pictures of the hybrid cross and any other documentation about it? I have one of these received in a trade, and want to know if I should bother keeping it alive. I'm not really a hybrid grower, and I guess I could put it on a raffle table with the note (NOID)... I'm definitely not a taxonomist or want to play one on tv or otherwise (smile) and am obviously lost if two differing authorities disagree on this subject

actually, I just found the taxonomist in question named already in this post
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179276

I did an rhs hybrid name search or parentage search, and found no results for corningiana x tetraspis or reverse, to confirm from pictures if they look the same. I'm surprised if there have been speciosa in cultivation recently, why didn't they try to propagate that and sell seedlings of it? (or the parent plants for a lot of money)
thanks

I actually found quite a discussion last year about this on another forum here
http://chat.phalaenopsis.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6060&sid=a89a89c252da5bd9acecc3f5d1160b8c&start=30
and Dean Stock says that the habitat where speciosa had been found was thoroughly destroyed before he was able to look for it during the 1960's, and that no-one had established it in culture before that time.

 

[Roth]

hello sanderianum,

I'm not trying to discount what you are saying, I'm just hoping for clarification. I have been told that an american taxonomist had looked at tetraspis c#1 and said that it was speciosa. I haven't received permission to pass along details other than that; if I do I will. Do you have any pictures of the hybrid cross and any other documentation about it?

I try to find out the book, it was one of the earlier Taiwanese books about Phalaenopsis, limited edition, the wonders of phalaenopsis or a title like that...

I know several taxonomists said that tetraspis C1 is speciosa, but they have no clue about hybrids, line breeding, etc... for sure C1 is an hybrid, nothing more, nothing less. When one compare with real paintings or herbarinum specimens of speciosa, the C1 are completely different... Furthermore, the earlier selfings of c1 always gave some tetraspis-like flowers, and a lot of weird things. I have seen as well some selfings of the "speciosa" around, that are a darker red C1, and many look like C1 or like a tetraspis. When I saw this, the owner of the nursery told me that maybe they mixed up with seedlings of tetraspis when potting...

I did an rhs hybrid name search or parentage search, and found no results for corningiana x tetraspis or reverse, to confirm from pictures if they look the same. I'm surprised if there have been speciosa in cultivation recently, why didn't they try to propagate that and sell seedlings of it? (or the parent plants for a lot of money)

That's normal that this hybrid has not been registered. The owner realized quite quickly what he could do with that. From a 2Us hybrid to, after a couple more generation selfing siblings, a 300USD seedling of c1 in the earlier days. Great... Now they work on speciosa speciosa, the solid red color, and some speciosa seedlings have been offered in the last couple of years, solid red color. The C1 or R&B clones have no proven origin to the wild, the sellers simply just said that they are wild collected, and end of the story.

The last points, there are some herbarium specimens in Paris, and they show quite a few flowers opened at the same time, 6-8. Something I have not seen in the C1 as well...

and Dean Stock says that the habitat where speciosa had been found was thoroughly destroyed before he was able to look for it during the 1960's, and that no-one had established it in culture before that time.

There are many places where speciosa could be found in Andaman and Nicobar, so there is still some hope to find out some plants one day... Like the one presently in Thailand and found through a wealthy nurseryman, now deceased, who paid a small fortune fishermen to approach those islands few years ago. He got 3 plants, 2 died, and one is in a private Thai collection in central Bangkok, where they attempt to propagate it. The plant is really unique, especially the flower stem with dozens of nodes...

 

[Chien]

Simply because a SELECTED spicerianum is worth a lot more than Bruno. Bruno is not very expensive in Taiwan, so far in Bangkok the wholesale price was USD3/growth

Where did you get this information? Is that true?
My friend in BKK told me that 1 growth cost 3000 Baht, that's almost USD100. If you know where we can buy 1 growth for USD3, you must tell me, we will happy to buy a lot!

 

[valenzino]

I try to find out the book, it was one of the earlier Taiwanese books about Phalaenopsis, limited edition, the wonders of phalaenopsis or a title like that...

I know several taxonomists said that tetraspis C1 is speciosa, but they have no clue about hybrids, line breeding, etc... for sure C1 is an hybrid, nothing more, nothing less. When one compare with real paintings or herbarinum specimens of speciosa, the C1 are completely different... Furthermore, the earlier selfings of c1 always gave some tetraspis-like flowers, and a lot of weird things. I have seen as well some selfings of the "speciosa" around, that are a darker red C1, and many look like C1 or like a tetraspis. When I saw this, the owner of the nursery told me that maybe they mixed up with seedlings of tetraspis when potting...



That's normal that this hybrid has not been registered. The owner realized quite quickly what he could do with that. From a 2Us hybrid to, after a couple more generation selfing siblings, a 300USD seedling of c1 in the earlier days. Great... Now they work on speciosa speciosa, the solid red color, and some speciosa seedlings have been offered in the last couple of years, solid red color. The C1 or R&B clones have no proven origin to the wild, the sellers simply just said that they are wild collected, and end of the story.

The last points, there are some herbarium specimens in Paris, and they show quite a few flowers opened at the same time, 6-8. Something I have not seen in the C1 as well...



There are many places where speciosa could be found in Andaman and Nicobar, so there is still some hope to find out some plants one day... Like the one presently in Thailand and found through a wealthy nurseryman, now deceased, who paid a small fortune fishermen to approach those islands few years ago. He got 3 plants, 2 died, and one is in a private Thai collection in central Bangkok, where they attempt to propagate it. The plant is really unique, especially the flower stem with dozens of nodes...

I can agree on many things but I have other infos about it.

I've seen tetraspis x corningiana hybrid and is compleately different from c1.
But I can immagine that selecting on thausand plants,a genetic mix of the random pink lines on tetraspis with the red colour of corningiana can give the C1 outcome,but still not convinced about it.

About the speciosa itself,there are some wild collected plants in Malaysia,from 2 different imports.All the plants have been purchased by private Malaysian collectors(the plants arrived in Johor area in a small nursery).I've seen 2 of this plants in flower.
The form and dimension of flower and the way they flower are quite different from C1.Also the plant itself is different,more bellina like than tetraspis like....flatter rounder leaves.
The flowers are compleately red with a soffusion of white starting from the column and running on the median venature of petals and sepals(nearly invisible but looking with attention can see it).
Quite long stems.This plant is known in malaysia as Phal imperatrix but I think in reality is the true simple Phal.speciosa.
A friend of us (NG) use to have one many years ago(years before C1 appeared) hidden in the trees around his nursery...obviously he refused to reproduce and killed the plant like a lot of others in his nursery...
At first I thinked that he have not killed the plant and sold to taiwanese that have crossed it with tetraspis and obtained C1.But i had no possibility to find evidence about it.

 

[luvsorchids]

I find the possibility that species (both Phal and Paph-and maybe others) are actually hybrids masquerading as species to be rather disturbing. I wish there was a more definitive way of determing what is what.

This has me thinking. What about Phal. micholitzii? That species has the reputation for being slow growing and more difficult to cultivate. I have recently seen lines of Taiwanese micholizii being advertised as being more vigorous and easy to grow. Are these pure species that have been line bred for vigor or hybrids that have been line bred to look like michlizii?

Susan

 

[cnycharles]

I find the possibility that species (both Phal and Paph-and maybe others) are actually hybrids masquerading as species to be rather disturbing. I wish there was a more definitive way of determing what is what.

This has me thinking. What about Phal. micholitzii? That species has the reputation for being slow growing and more difficult to cultivate. I have recently seen lines of Taiwanese micholizii being advertised as being more vigorous and easy to grow. Are these pure species that have been line bred for vigor or hybrids that have been line bred to look like michlizii?

Susan

well, to make a hybrid micholitzii, you would need to have white flowers that have the same or nearly the same shape. off the top of my head I don't remember that many or any. if there is something else that has it's shape and color, then there could be a possibility but if there isn't another flower similar, then you wouldn't have anything to hybridize it with. at least one nice thing about having a 'white' color where something with another color could be meddled with

 

[Roth]

I can agree on many things but I have other infos about it.

I've seen tetraspis x corningiana hybrid and is compleately different from c1.
But I can immagine that selecting on thausand plants,a genetic mix of the random pink lines on tetraspis with the red colour of corningiana can give the C1 outcome,but still not convinced about it.

There was that picture in the earlier phals books from the Taiwanese, I try to find it out, but it is not easy.... It was exactly the c1....

About the speciosa itself,there are some wild collected plants in Malaysia,from 2 different imports.All the plants have been purchased by private Malaysian collectors(the plants arrived in Johor area in a small nursery).I've seen 2 of this plants in flower.
The form and dimension of flower and the way they flower are quite different from C1.Also the plant itself is different,more bellina like than tetraspis like....flatter rounder leaves.

Yes, they were brought back by fishermen apparently, and the genuine ones. The plants are definitely different, like a bellina with quite thin round leaves. The flower stems of the ones I have seen had many scales and were dropping, extremely long, up to 50-60 cm on some plants.

A friend of us (NG) use to have one many years ago(years before C1 appeared) hidden in the trees around his nursery...obviously he refused to reproduce and killed the plant like a lot of others in his nursery...
At first I thinked that he have not killed the plant and sold to taiwanese that have crossed it with tetraspis and obtained C1.But i had no possibility to find evidence about it.

Krairit bought it at that time, and the plant is still alive. Some years later Krairit bought as well the bellina coerulea original plants - was a big ****-up actually with the Malaysia flasks of bellina coerulea, some ended up to be a Harlequin hybrid x violacea...

The keypoint is that c1 is not a speciosa, and not a species at all.. NG just had many C1 selfings in bloom, and some older plants, and there were quite a lot of tetraspis-like blooms in the selfings, apart from some C1, and from some of the plants called 'speciosa' by the Taiwanese that are a more redder type of c1...

 

[Roth]

well, to make a hybrid micholitzii, you would need to have white flowers that have the same or nearly the same shape. off the top of my head I don't remember that many or any. if there is something else that has it's shape and color, then there could be a possibility but if there isn't another flower similar, then you wouldn't have anything to hybridize it with. at least one nice thing about having a 'white' color where something with another color could be meddled with

The lineage of Michael Ooi for his famous violacea alba included micholitzii in the early breeding, all the Malaysians know about that - and sometimes a few funny violacea alba appears i a selfing of what we believe to be a violacea alba thanks to him...

 

[valenzino]

The lineage of Michael Ooi for his famous violacea alba included micholitzii in the early breeding, all the Malaysians know about that - and sometimes a few funny violacea alba appears i a selfing of what we believe to be a violacea alba thanks to him...

Absolutely true,I,ve seen in a nursery of a friend in malaysia at same time,breeding from Michae ooi,a new violacea alba wild collected and micholitzii, in flower at same time,and michael ooi breading have a strange similarity in the lip with micholitzii....same problem I suspect in the new P.bellina alba that are around now....probably few are true but majority are bellina x violacea alba......

 

[cnycharles]

hmm, I have a violacea alba I got in a flask from southeast asia (brain and memory is fuzzy at moment) and another I got in flask from australia. the one from australia is what I would expect a 'species' and an alba violacea, and the first one looks very very nice, but a bit different from the second and is so nice it could be a hybrid. the flowers are amazingly flat. I guess I'll have to look at what makes a micholitzii lip and all and see if there is any of it there. I almost made an outcross but didn't get around to it, maybe it's good that I didn't

I have a feeling that some 'unusual' bellina or some of the bellina 'coerulea' are actually crosses with violacea in there. to me a bellina has clear-cut purple and green areas with maybe slight mix between the two (probably very poor assumption on my part), but I've seen pictures of some very wild things that seem a bit much for a bellina, also I've seen pictures of things called bellina coerulea that seems to have a wash of pink through the green. wonder if that's creation or very wishful thinking to call it a coerulea, or if it's just another hybrid (maybe even an innocent one from when violacea malaysia and violacea borneo were both violacea, and variety cross was done and later switched from violacea to bellina?)

 

[NYEric]

Refund! :fight:

 

[paphioboy]

Charles, sorry to hear about the mix-up/misidentification (whether intentional or not).. I think the white 'hybrid' may be Penang Violacea (violacea alba x micholitzii, if I'm not mistaken)..

Regarding phal violacea and its numerous varieties, maybe its not the nursery's fault. I assume that maybe the nursery owner made the cross while phal bellina was still considered as 'violacea var. borneo', hence the genetics might be a bit muddy, especially if they cross different varieties/strains together.. Got sure about the wild specimens that look like hybrids, though..

 

[Roth]

Charles, sorry to hear about the mix-up/misidentification (whether intentional or not).. I think the white 'hybrid' may be Penang Violacea (violacea alba x micholitzii, if I'm not mistaken)..

Regarding phal violacea and its numerous varieties, maybe its not the nursery's fault. I assume that maybe the nursery owner made the cross while phal bellina was still considered as 'violacea var. borneo', hence the genetics might be a bit muddy, especially if they cross different varieties/strains together.. Got sure about the wild specimens that look like hybrids, though..

No, Michael Ooi bred the Penang Violacea, then he used that Penang Violacea to make more 'clear and clean' violacea alba to sell... He made it first, on purpose.

The second thing that is far from clear is the source of those violacea dark blue, still originally from Michael Ooi. To my mind they are hybrids of Xth generation. There is no dark blue violacea in the wild, even remotely close like that. I remember I heard somewhere that there could have been some other species such as venosa in the ancestry, many generations. In Malaysia, many violacea are not pure bred anyway, some even have back some lueddemaniana. What is very suspicious with those blue violacea is that apparently the original crosses are producing white, pink, and blue. it is not really normal I am afraid...

The bellina alba are purely a scam, I have seen only 2 times jungle bellina alba in face.

The bellina alba on the market have been bred on purpose with violacea alba, as "bellina alba" appeared on the market very recently, at a time where everyone knows that bellina and violacea are different species...

The bellina coerulea, the history is far more complicated. There are 2 different simultaneous origins of bellina coerulea. One happens to be 3 plants - maybe 4 - jungle collected. They are real marvels, I have seen one in bloom sold to Krairit in Thailand for 8000USD - that plant subsequently died.

Another one in Malaysia is said to have produced flasks, selfing, and siblings with krairit plant. So far, I got flasks of both supposedly, from 2 nurseries in Malaysia. Only one entire flask was coerulea, the remaining was pure garbage, hybrids of harlequins... Another scam.

A couple years later, Taiwan started to sell bellina coerulea, but from a 'different' parent. So far I am sure that the Taiwanese bellina coerulea are in fact Samera coerulea...