# Paph. gardineri.



## jblanford (Feb 12, 2011)

I picked up this cute little guy at the Madison Wi. show last weekend. I have not heard of it before but I sure like it a lot. Remember the candy bar Baby Ruth well if I had a chance to name this plant I would call it Paph. gardineri ' Baby Roth' what do you think?.... Jim.


----------



## Howzat (Feb 13, 2011)

My personal assessment is YES this is the Paph gardinerii. There was some discussion in another thread which confused this gardinerii with wilhelminae.
Nice one.
Well you can give any clonal name as you like as long it does not confuse with the real roths.


----------



## JeanLux (Feb 13, 2011)

Very nice blooms, a great buy Jim!!! Jean


----------



## paphjoint (Feb 13, 2011)

nice !


----------



## Shiva (Feb 13, 2011)

Yes a good buy. Nice!


----------



## Bolero (Feb 13, 2011)

Lovely! They are great flowers.


----------



## wolverine329 (Feb 13, 2011)

very nice flower


----------



## Roy (Feb 13, 2011)

I would accept that its the form gardineri but thats just a syn' for Paph glanduliferum. Atleast thats how Kew list of monocots & Orchids registrations see it.


----------



## etex (Feb 13, 2011)

Very nice blooms!


----------



## Howzat (Feb 13, 2011)

Roy said:


> I would accept that its the form gardineri but thats just a syn' for Paph glanduliferum. Atleast thats how Kew list of monocots & Orchids registrations see it.



You are dead right Roy. As I also understand it, I have not heard that Kew has changed that all three subsp. praestan, wilhelminae and gardinerii are all still under glanduliferum. Remember this : glanduliferum has never been rediscovered after more than 100 years.
praestan and wilhelminae have similar flower shape and size. The only difference (to me) is that praestan (unfortunately mine died on me) has just green leaves whereas wilhelminae very dark green , reddish base (still has 3). Cribb recognised this wilhelminae leaves immediately upon seeing them in Brisbane AOC1997 conf., whereas gardinerii has smaller dark flower and green leaves.
May be it is time for Kew or other taxonomists to unravel this mystery "glanduliferum" or otherwise get rid of it. Is it possible that the jar containing "glanduliferum" is in fact praestan???


----------



## Rick (Feb 13, 2011)

Baby Roth is a great name JB:clap::clap::clap:


What's the leaf span of this plant?


----------



## jblanford (Feb 13, 2011)

Well Rick, this is a great little plant, the LS is about 11", it has 3 spent growths, 3 new growths, and one in bloom all in a 3.5" pot, here's a couple of pics, hope you like my ruler.... Jim.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 13, 2011)

Howzat said:


> .....praestan and wilhelminae have similar flower shape and size. The only difference (to me) is that praestan (unfortunately mine died on me) has just green leaves whereas wilhelminae very dark green , reddish base (still has 3). Cribb recognised this wilhelminae leaves immediately upon seeing them in Brisbane AOC1997 conf., whereas gardinerii has smaller dark flower and green leaves....


I think there are more differences between P. praestans and P. wilhelminae than the colour of their leaves!!!
Not only that their flowers differ in shape, size and shape of the dorasal, colouration and further more but also they come from different origins and altitudes.
For comparison Paph praestans see http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/polyantha/praestans/index.html and Paph wilhelminae http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/polyantha/wilhelminiae/index.html.


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 13, 2011)

:clap::clap: Nice buy Jim, I sure like mine, I'm sure you will too!


----------



## W. Beetus (Feb 13, 2011)

Nice little plant!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 13, 2011)

Amazingly small plant! I agree, cute name.


----------



## Howzat (Feb 13, 2011)

jblanford said:


> Well Rick, this is a great little plant, the LS is about 11", it has 3 spent growths, 3 new growths, and one in bloom all in a 3.5" pot, here's a couple of pics, hope you like my ruler.... Jim.




YES, the size of the leaves are right for gardinerii!!!!!

TO RUDOLF
Thanks for the input. Yes , praestan and wilhelminae flowers have some differences. But my comment is for the people who want to lump together, because they are the closest on flower shape. But I totally disagree IF gardinerii is lumped together with either the glanduliferum praestans or wilhelminae.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Feb 13, 2011)

Do all wilheliminiae's have red at the leaf base? I posted a picture a year or so ago of my glanduliferum...or was it gardneri? At any rate, it was on a very small plant, and everyone got back to say that the plant was really wilhelminiae. But that plant doesn't have the slightest trace of red anywhere.


----------



## Rick (Feb 13, 2011)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> Do all wilheliminiae's have red at the leaf base? I posted a picture a year or so ago of my glanduliferum...or was it gardneri? At any rate, it was on a very small plant, and everyone got back to say that the plant was really wilhelminiae. But that plant doesn't have the slightest trace of red anywhere.



I doubt that the original descriptions of gardneri (around 1890) or wilhelmineae (about 1940) say anything about the color of the leaf base. Cribb's 1994 description of "wilhelmineae" plants and flowers observed at the type locality of the original Bras 1938 collections do not mention red leaf bases at all. Cribb also does not differentiate the Wissel Lake population (about 100 miles away from the type locality) collected by Kennedy as being different in leaf or leaf base color. Garay's treatise sticks pretty much to just the flowers, and doesn't even consider nomenclature history and geography in defending Kenedy's resurrecting of gardnerii using the Wissel lake plants as the new type and locality. (Remember the original gardnerii wasn't even found on New Guinea, but one of the Islands to the North west).

Shades of green and leaf base colors are like chameleons in plants. Chances are I could take any "gardnerii" and grow it on a Mg poor, iron rich substrate, and make the leaves pale green with red bases.


----------



## Rick (Feb 13, 2011)

jblanford said:


> Well Rick, this is a great little plant, the LS is about 11", it has 3 spent growths, 3 new growths, and one in bloom all in a 3.5" pot, here's a couple of pics, hope you like my ruler.... Jim.



Cigarettes and Beer cans for measuring scales!

Says a lot about us slipper growersoke:oke:


----------



## Rick (Feb 13, 2011)

Actually what's kind of missing in the descriptions are plants collected from the Southern Highlands Province PNG. These were originally discovered in 1978 by Tom Reeve, but in 1996 Clements & Jones named this southern form P. striatum. This flower is supposed to have only slightly twisted petals (coming close to Garay's principle character for the "true wilhelm").

Of all the pics posted on Slippertalk Uri (paphjoint) has the plant which comes closest to either striatum or Garay's version of wilhelm. Maybe Uri's plant has red leaf bases. I tried to look up his old post, but the pic had been pulled.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10236


----------



## Howzat (Feb 14, 2011)

Rick said:


> I doubt that the original descriptions of gardneri (around 1890) or wilhelmineae (about 1940) say anything about the color of the leaf base. Cribb's 1994 description of "wilhelmineae" plants and flowers observed at the type locality of the original Bras 1938 collections do not mention red leaf bases at all. Cribb also does not differentiate the Wissel Lake population (about 100 miles away from the type locality) collected by Kennedy as being different in leaf or leaf base color. Garay's treatise sticks pretty much to just the flowers, and doesn't even consider nomenclature history and geography in defending Kenedy's resurrecting of gardnerii using the Wissel lake plants as the new type and locality. (Remember the original gardnerii wasn't even found on New Guinea, but one of the Islands to the North west).
> 
> Shades of green and leaf base colors are like chameleons in plants. Chances are I could take any "gardnerii" and grow it on a Mg poor, iron rich substrate, and make the leaves pale green with red bases.



Thanks Rick for your opinion. BUT LET'S LET RHS AND THE CLEVER TAXONOMISTS WORK AND UNFOLD THE MYSTERY OF glanduliferum and its subspecies


----------



## Roy (Feb 14, 2011)

The only way to solve this problem is to approach the RHS for their Committee to research the plants and come up with solution. ie, they are all together or separated. Personally, I believe the type name should be P. praestans with wilhelm', gardineri & striatum maybe as either varieties of it or separated out completely. There are plants around the are a mix of praestans & wilhelm' etc & in time, no-one will know what the heck they are, if not already.


----------



## Rick (Feb 14, 2011)

Howzat said:


> Thanks Rick for your opinion. BUT LET'S LET RHS AND THE CLEVER TAXONOMISTS WORK AND UNFOLD THE MYSTERY OF glanduliferum and its subspecies




The RHS is no more than a barely functional clearing house for complition of nomenclature.

If you read a taxonomic description you will see a list of publications (in various texts and journals) of the nomenclature history of a given organism. The RHS has nothing to do with the vast bulk of these studies, and defering to the RHS is just as arbritrary as the opinions of the individual researcher publishing the taxonomic studies.

I will agree that my opinions are opinions until I conduct my own study and publish my own papers, but my schooling and background in behavioural ecology (from the same school that Koopowitz taught at) is comparable to that of the "clever" taxonomists.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 14, 2011)

Howzat said:


> Thanks Rick for your opinion. BUT LET'S LET RHS AND THE CLEVER TAXONOMISTS WORK AND UNFOLD THE MYSTERY OF glanduliferum and its subspecies



Rick's post obviously had some research and knowledge of the literature behind it, and was a perfectly reasonable contribution to this thread. What a dull forum we would end up with if ignorant comments like that discourage knowledgeable members from posting.


----------



## John M (Feb 14, 2011)

Howzat said:


> Thanks Rick for your opinion. BUT LET'S LET RHS AND THE CLEVER TAXONOMISTS WORK AND UNFOLD THE MYSTERY OF glanduliferum and its subspecies



Howzat, I don't know you; but, I am glad that you've chosen to spend time participating here at ST. We always welcome fellow slipper enthusiasts here and you seem to have a special passion. So, that's something good that we all have in common. But, your above quoted comment, typed in BOLD, indicating that you are raising your voice to drown out other voices and emphasize your point, seems to be telling Rick that if he does not agree with your view, he should just shut up. That's very arrogant and inappropriate. 

However, sometimes typed words are misinterpreted more easily than if we were all physically in the same room, where our body language and tone of voice would also play a big role in getting our point across. So, perhaps I've completely misread you. Please clarify the meaning behind your post.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Feb 14, 2011)

Jim, regardless of the name used for that plant, it is very nice, and it looks alot like a couple plants that I had picked up from Rands in the late 1980's as wilhelminiae. They flowered a few times for me, but unfortunately, I lost them. Could you post, or PM me the vendor you got this one from, I would like to see if I can get one for myself. 
Thanks


----------



## emydura (Feb 15, 2011)

I support the comments made by John and Kirk. Rick has nothing to prove to me. His knowledge of Paph species in particular is second to none on this forum and I always read his posts with a great deal of interest. I, like a lot of people learn a lot from Rick as he can bring a strong scientific background to the debate which most people on this forum don't have. 

I first came across Rick on another forum and missed his contributions when he left to move to ST. One of the reasons I joined this forum was Rick himself. The other reason was the greater freedom of speech and rigorous debate in ST that was a bit lacking on the other forum. May that continue.

I also support Rick's opinion that superficial differences such as leaf colour is not a reliable way to differentiate species.

David


----------



## Howzat (Feb 15, 2011)

John M said:


> Howzat, I don't know you; but, I am glad that you've chosen to spend time participating here at ST. We always welcome fellow slipper enthusiasts here and you seem to have a special passion. So, that's something good that we all have in common. But, your above quoted comment, typed in BOLD, indicating that you are raising your voice to drown out other voices and emphasize your point, seems to be telling Rick that if he does not agree with your view, he should just shut up. That's very arrogant and inappropriate.
> 
> However, sometimes typed words are misinterpreted more easily than if we were all physically in the same room, where our body language and tone of voice would also play a big role in getting our point across. So, perhaps I've completely misread you. Please clarify the meaning behind your post.


I have PM Rick and clarified the situation. My apology if that bold letter was taken and interpreted that way.


----------



## Rick (Feb 15, 2011)

Leo Schordje said:


> Jim, regardless of the name used for that plant, it is very nice, and it looks alot like a couple plants that I had picked up from Rands in the late 1980's as wilhelminiae. They flowered a few times for me, but unfortunately, I lost them. Could you post, or PM me the vendor you got this one from, I would like to see if I can get one for myself.
> Thanks



Leo

You know the history of I bet every major Paph importation in the US! Do you know where Marylin Ledeux's (I apologize if I butchered her spelling) wilhelmineae (or gardinerii) 'Ron' or 'Equanamity' came from?

I have 1 (of 2) plants surviving that I got from Andys that originated from OZ with parent stock that I believe came from the same Rand's importation.

I selfed it and there are some seedlings floating around from Troy Meyer (I lost all mine from the freebie flask). But now I'm growing out some seedlings from a cross of this plant and an offspring of the Windy Hill parentage.


----------



## Howzat (Feb 15, 2011)

I want to further stress that the capital letters was in no way meant to shut Rick's input. If you read it more carefully, it is in my opinion that we laymen in taxonomy should not have a "too serious" discussion on aspects of it, we should therefore leave it to the RHS or the clever taxonomists (who not only contradict each other but also changed their mind too often. What Cribb said to me verbally in 1997 was different from Rick's research of Cribb's 2nd edition of his book.


----------



## Rick (Feb 15, 2011)

Don't worry about it Howard.

I think there are some pretty awesome endorsements of this site that demonstrate we can have some pretty serious debates and proceed on to the next.

My take home is don't sell yourself short on your own knowledge and abilities. I've seen lots of taxonomy (for all types of organisms) published by grad students for their PhD dissertations. Most of it just as worthy as what the pros put out. Technologies change as does understanding, but some of us are somewhat impatient that this debate has been going on 150 years now and there's no end in site!

Kew and the RHS is not the "Vatican" of orchid biology either. Often the indigenous people in their own lands know more about the orchids in their backyards, and I doubt that the majority have advanced degrees. But good field biologists have learned to check in with them first.


----------



## Howzat (Feb 16, 2011)

Rick, I take your last post with a big open heart. You hit the nail on the head.
It has been a real good exchange of opinion with you in the last couple of days, in which I learned more about subject(orchids) and people than in the last 10 years.
As for RHS, I can't say much, but I have to say they have done great job in registering/keeping all the hybrid names. But they do not know what to do with ang-thong (used to be a natural hybrid, x ang-thong) and Greyi (man made hybrid), of godefroyae and niveum.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Feb 18, 2011)

Rick said:


> Leo
> 
> You know the history of I bet every major Paph importation in the US! Do you know where Marylin Ledeux's (I apologize if I butchered her spelling) wilhelmineae (or gardinerii) 'Ron' or 'Equanamity' came from?
> 
> ...



Hi Rick,
I really don't remember, but I do know the cross ('Ron' x 'Equanamity') originated about 6 or 7 years after the last big import of wilhelminiae brought in by Ray Rands. I vaguely remember some beefing that this cross was not 'pure' species ecotype, in that one parent was the Highlands wilhelminiae type (like the Wissel Lakes types) and the other was a slightly larger flowered and larger growing type (perhaps Southern Highlands or Jobi Island), but I am not certain, so this is speculation. I believe 'Ron' is a clone sourced from Ron Csizinski of Taylor Orchids southwest of Detroit Michigan. Ron had multiple sources beyond Ray Rands, including Henry Azadehdel, before Henry "left the business", 'nuf said on that. :evil: 'Equanamity' was from Thoroughbred Orchids, I know nothing about this clone. So these thoughts are what I can remember from the "Vague but True" portion of my mind. 

Marilyn is easy to talk to, she might remember the details of where her plants came from, call her in the early evening on weekdays if you want to talk to her, she is not home during the 8 am to 5pm work week. She has a great eye for a good plant, and is a very good grower. When you call, be sure to ask her what species she has that is good this week, often she will have ones or twos of some very nice stuff in quantities to limited to publish.


----------

