What are the differences between Cyps, Paphs and Phrags?

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

smartie2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
4,212
Reaction score
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*!
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
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*!
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.
 

KyushuCalanthe

Just call me Tom
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
7,764
Reaction score
60
Location
Kyushu, Japan; warm temperate/subtropical climate
I'm sure though that someone will try!
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!
 

NYEric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
47,642
Reaction score
170
Location
New York City Apartment
For one thing, the plant structure is totally different. Phrags have long, sword-shaped leaves, and Paphs have thicker, wider leaves that are held closer to the ground. .
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.
 

parvi_17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
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.
I have never seen a Phrag that is not immediately distinguishable from any Paph when looking at the leaves.
 

parvi_17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
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!
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.
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
that's OK, I'm sure when you get older this wont be true. :pity:
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.
 
K

Kavanaru

Guest
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.
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) ;)
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
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) ;)
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.
 
K

Kavanaru

Guest
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)..
 

parvi_17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
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...
 

parvi_17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
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)..
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.
 
K

Kevin

Guest
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.
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?
 

parvi_17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?
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.
 

kentuckiense

Debaser
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, VA
So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?
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.
 
N

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:
 
2

Latest posts

Top