What are the differences between Cyps, Paphs and Phrags?

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Kevin, Mar 18, 2010.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Mar 19, 2010 #21

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
  2. Mar 19, 2010 #22

    smartie2000

    smartie2000

    smartie2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Thanks,
    I also scanned Cribb's drawings/plates from his Cyp. monograph a while ago. He drew three fused carples, but no connective tissue in the middle.
    I am interpreting his drawing correctly, that makes one locule. but the drawing is too simplified.

    that article I will have to read tomorrow...*yawn*!
     
  3. Mar 19, 2010 #23

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Right. That's what it would be. The basal state of orchids is three-merous (thee petals, three sepals, three stigmas (corresponding to three ovary locules), three anthers). However, in most orchids, there's been a good bit of fusion or other changes over the years.

    IE, in slippers: 2 sepals fused to form the synsepal, one anther turned into a staminode, the stigmas fused into one surface that is three-lobed. I know you know this already, but I'm pointing it out for our newer slipper orchid students.
     
  4. Mar 19, 2010 #24

    KyushuCalanthe

    KyushuCalanthe

    KyushuCalanthe

    Just call me Tom

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,625
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Kyushu, Japan; warm temperate/subtropical climate
    Just as I had predicted.

    I don't know that a novice would be able to wrap their mind around all of what has just been said, regardless of accuracy (what the X!FS does plicate mean, anyways?!). If you had a mind to do it, you could plow your way through a dichotomous key I suppose, if such a thing exists for all known taxa!
     
  5. Mar 19, 2010 #25

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,183
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    Sorry, but this is an inaccurate generalization, I have seen phrag leaves that that are indistinguishable from some large paphs. beside continental location differences the flowers are different and the chromosones are diff, thats why we dont have phragmipedilums yet.
     
  6. Mar 19, 2010 #26

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    I have never seen a Phrag that is not immediately distinguishable from any Paph when looking at the leaves.
     
  7. Mar 19, 2010 #27

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Why does Cribb point out in his 1997 monograph on Cyps that they are trilocular?

    I need to read this paper by Cox et alia.

    These conflicting sources are very frustrating!
     
  8. Mar 19, 2010 #28

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    I'll define a couple terms to make it easier to read some of this stuff:

    Plicate - The leaf is folded or pleated like a fan. E.g. in Cyps, the leaves have "ribs" from the base to the tip.

    Conduplicate - The leaf is folded down the center from the base to the tip. E.g. in Paphs, the leaves have a single fold in the center.
     
  9. Mar 19, 2010 #29

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,183
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    that's OK, I'm sure when you get older this wont be true. :pity:
     
  10. Mar 19, 2010 #30

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    I'm not sure if this is age-based condescension or a playful joke about deterioration of eyesight as one ages, but I'm going to have to agree with Joe on this one. I find Phrag leaves to be easily distinguishable from similar Paph leaves (IE Phrag longifolium vs. Paph kolopakingii) based mostly upon thickness and how they are carried (and gestalt, of course). I would be genuinely interested in seeing these indistinguishable examples that you mention.
     
  11. Mar 19, 2010 #31

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    I don't think he does. Check page 24.
     
  12. Mar 19, 2010 #32
    when you are trained with both Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum that's 100% true, but I can put my hand on fire for newbies.. ask my partner and some colleagues, who cannot see the difference between both and can only separate Paphies with mottled leave (but put Paph. bellatulum and Paph. vensutum in the same pot) ;)
     
  13. Mar 19, 2010 #33

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Oh, I can certainly see how some strap leaf Paphs could look similar to some Phrag species, no doubt. Growers new to those genera would certainly have a hard time telling the two genera apart. However, my argument is with Eric's (a person who is well acquainted with both genera) statement that he's seen Paph/Phrag foliage that are "indistinguishable" from one another.
     
  14. Mar 19, 2010 #34
    ok, but I assumed the comment as a reference to someone new into slippers... in the thread it has been discussed the basics on nomenclature and so on... that's why ;) of course Eric should not have that problem (unless he is not wearing his glasses :D)..
     
  15. Mar 19, 2010 #35

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Thanks for your support on the Paph/Phrag thing kentuckiense! I will check the book (The Genus Cypripedium) when I get home. I was reading it last night, but I was also very tired!

    Eric, I've been doing this for 9 years (not everyone my age is inexperienced and knows nothing) and I have seen A LOT of plants in that time! I am frankly sick and tired of people assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about just because I don't have grey hair. Not all of us need a lifetime to figure things out. I'm a botany student, and I have been obsessed with these plants since I was 10. End of story.

    And please, please stop it with the belligerent comments directed at me. I don't know when you decided you don't like me, but lately you can't seem to leave me alone. We never had problems before, and I've been on this forum since 2006! Sheesh...
     
  16. Mar 19, 2010 #36

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Looking back at the original post, I guess this was intended to be for both newbies and experienced growers. But there isn't really a simple way to tell the differences that you can explain to new growers, beyond the obvious differences in the leaves, growth habit, etc. When you're looking at flowers, there is so much variation in the genera that anyone who is not familiar with them will get them mixed up. That's because they all share basic floral charcteristics. That's why all were originally placed in Cypripedium. It wasn't until botanists started really looking at them that they were reclassified.
     
  17. Mar 19, 2010 #37

    Kevin

    Kevin

    Kevin

    Guest

    This is what I was getting at. And, like I and others have stated before, there are some Phrags that can be easily confused with some Paphs in terms of plant structure (eg. some long-petalled Phrags and some multi-floral Paphs). I know people who have had trouble telling the difference between the long-petalled Phrag flowers and some of the Paph sanderianum and philippinense species and hybrids. Can you see how that could be confusing to a newcommer?

    So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?
     
  18. Mar 19, 2010 #38

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    parvi_17

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Not that I can think of. Because every generalization made about a genus, in terms of what a layman would be looking at, can be refuted; e.g. not all Paphs have mottled leaves, not all Phrags are long-petalled, etc. I do think that plant structure is pretty obvious, but just looking at the flowers is more complicated. Like I say, we just don't realize it because we know what a Phrag caudatum or a Paph delenatii looks like. When we see them, we immediately know what they are. That just comes with experience.
     
  19. Mar 19, 2010 #39

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    kentuckiense

    Debaser

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    After really thinking about it, I agree with you. In terms of floral characteristics, I don't think there is a single dichotomous-key-esque statement that differentiates the two.
     
  20. Mar 19, 2010 #40

    nikv

    nikv

    nikv

    Guest

    What do the taxonomists use to differentiate the two genera? Other than Paphs being "Old Word" and Phrags being "New World", there must be something that differentiates them? Otherwise, they would all be reclassified into one genus. :confused:
     

Share This Page



arrow_white