# Why was I created?? Paph Bruno



## Jorch (Jan 1, 2011)

Here's my Paph Bruno in bloom.. my question, like the title says, is the 'raison-d'etre' for this hybrid? What was the hybridizer trying to achieve in this cross? The end result, in my untrained eyes, looks just like a spicerianum!


----------



## likespaphs (Jan 1, 2011)

maybe for a bigger or easier to bloom plant?
maybe it was the only pollen available?


----------



## Paph_LdyMacBeth (Jan 1, 2011)

Maybe they really like chubby little spicy paphs?


----------



## Rick (Jan 1, 2011)

I think we've had some round table discussions of this topic in the past.

I always wonder what the plan was too given how cool the straight species are in their own rite.

I really can't imagine its worth it to anyone to create the "super species" look alike just to win awards, but maybe a commercial aspect of a big, hybrid vigorous, pot plant version for mass retail? Or maybe some type of pre-DNA genetic/taxonomic research?

In either event you end up with a lot of low value plants that tend to loose their breeding records.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 1, 2011)

My first orchid was a Paph. Bruno. It survived a beginners' attempt to unintentionally kill it, so maybe one of the benefits it that it is one tough plant!

I think one of the purposes for this hybrid was to create a spice with a flat dorsal.


----------



## John M (Jan 1, 2011)

What are the parents?


----------



## Erythrone (Jan 1, 2011)

Leeanum x spicerianum


----------



## NYEric (Jan 1, 2011)

to create the "super species" look alike just to win awards


----------



## aquacorps (Jan 1, 2011)

A few years ago I wrote to the president of the AOS to tell him of my bad experience at a judging center. A few months later I got an email from the head of judging. In a number of emails I was told that my species was actually leeanum x spicerianum and if I wanted to register the cross I could. 
(he knew the hybridizer, a fellow judge) and he was sure if I asked the hybridzer would allow me to register the cross. He was embarrased when I pointed out the cross was registered in the 1890's.


----------



## John M (Jan 1, 2011)

NYEric said:


> to create the "super species" look alike just to win awards


 Well, maybe. No doubt, the cross was made to produce bigger spicerianum-like flowers; but, perhaps not to then deliberately deceive.......although the pesimist in me tends to agree.


----------



## paphreek (Jan 1, 2011)

As Russell has stated, the cross was originally registered in 1890, so trying to discern what the original hybridizer intended is an exercise in futility. At that point in history, Paph species were still being discovered, stripped from the jungle, and shipped to England. Most perished on the voyage or shortly thereafter on arriving in England. Given their rarity and high value, any cross that produced viable offspring could be a financial success. 

Paph Bruno was found to be a good breeder and is found as an ancestor in 628 registered crosses. Some of the most notable are Paph The Gurka (spicerianum x Bruno)(notice: back crossed to spicerianum again)1915, Paph Dalla (The Gurka x Luna)1943, Paph Danella (Hellas x Dalla), and Paph Gurkley (Mrs. Eley x The Gurka)1956. Paph Gurkley is a descendant of many famous complexes including Harry Stage, Edward Marshall Boehm, Pittsburg, Shadowfax, Brown Glen, Memoria Jack Tonkin, and more recently, Icy Icy Wind, Stone Lovely, Sorcerer's Stone, and Emerald Lake.

Here is a recently posted picture Of Paph Danella 'Chilton' AM/AOS, a third generation Paph Bruno hybrid.


----------



## Brian Monk (Jan 2, 2011)

Ross is right - producing ANY first generation offspring would have been reason enough to make this hybrid. And what is wrong with a bogger, more vigorous spice witha fla dorsal anyways? For those who love hybrids (and spice, for that matter) Bruno has many advantages. 

As to unehical presentation of hybrids as species for judging, Bruno is only one in a long list of examples. Some of these are intentional attempts to deceive, some are purely ignorance, still others the result of stupidity.


----------



## slippertalker (Jan 2, 2011)

Back crosses of primary hybrids onto one of the parents is a typically successful line of breeding. There are countless examples where vigor is improved as well as size, shape and color. In this case, the flower of Bruno 'Model' is much improved over Paph spicerianum.


----------



## Rick (Jan 2, 2011)

Brian Monk said:


> Ross is right - producing ANY first generation offspring would have been reason enough to make this hybrid. And what is wrong with a bogger, more vigorous spice witha fla dorsal anyways?



This is probably the base of the argument.

There is nothing wrong with a more bigger, flatter, more vigorous spice. But Bruno is not a spicerianum. How many others out there see it and now equate it with the species rather than a hybrid? In strictly artificially cultivation circles I guess people wouldn't care what the parentage is (or as representing), as long as that particular flower is big flat and pretty. In the hybrid circles, purity of parental history is not a priority, and since the end result is "an improvement over the wild standard" then it's mission accomplished, and maintaining good records (for the species purists) is a low priority. Many record mistakes happen when priority to documentation is low.

But now and then the species purists try to make a stand, and end up getting hosed by all the undocumented mutts floating around.


----------



## paphreek (Jan 2, 2011)

Rick said:


> This is probably the base of the argument.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a more bigger, flatter, more vigorous spice. But Bruno is not a spicerianum. How many others out there see it and now equate it with the species rather than a hybrid? In strictly artificially cultivation circles I guess people wouldn't care what the parentage is (or as representing), as long as that particular flower is big flat and pretty. In the hybrid circles, purity of parental history is not a priority, and since the end result is "an improvement over the wild standard" then it's mission accomplished, and maintaining good records (for the species purists) is a low priority. Many record mistakes happen when priority to documentation is low.
> 
> But now and then the species purists try to make a stand, and end up getting hosed by all the undocumented mutts floating around.



This may be a valid argument, today, when the "purity" of a species can be an issue, but I doubt this discussion would have even been held in 1890, when Paph Bruno was registered. The fact that the plant has been registered as Paph Bruno, shows there was no intent on the part of the hybridizer to defraud. 

What sort of records would you have breeders maintain? Is a species still pure when a cross is made with plants of the same species from two separate geographical areas or from two different forms? 

Why would you infer that breeders of hybrids care nothing for the accuracy of records?


----------



## Rick (Jan 3, 2011)

paphreek said:


> This may be a valid argument, today, when the "purity" of a species can be an issue, but I doubt this discussion would have even been held in 1890, when Paph Bruno was registered. The fact that the plant has been registered as Paph Bruno, shows there was no intent on the part of the hybridizer to defraud.
> 
> What sort of records would you have breeders maintain? Is a species still pure when a cross is made with plants of the same species from two separate geographical areas or from two different forms?
> 
> Why would you infer that breeders of hybrids care nothing for the accuracy of records?




Agreed that this was not a concern in 1890. Probably not even till the 1950's or later when conservation (and a clamp down on collection of wild stock) became more of a concern. Also I did not suggest that fraud was the primary motive of near species hybridization.

It seems that the bulk of records are maintained on pot tags which don't weather well or get lost pretty easy. How many posts on this site alone do we see for identification aid of a NOID. Also geographical sources are very rarely tracked. I'm as bad as most I wager, keeping most info on tags, in my head, or in Troy Meyers computer. It also appears to this day that geographical documentation is often purposely falsified (although for sometimes different reasons than in 1890). Maybe in the near future some type of DNA analysis will become cost effective.

In the more extreme cases some purists feel that an organism (of any kind) ceases to represent the species when removed from its natural range. Given that a species designation really is an arbitrary division, I guess we can argue (and have several times to date) whether "purity" is maintained with inter form or varietal crosses. It depends on motivation and how desperate you are to maintain a given species (for example look at the recent history of the American chestnut). I feel, IMO, that species collection purely for stamp collecting, or AOS quality awards, is a not an especially prime motivation to maintain species "purity". 

The quality of a parentage record has little to do with the present-ability of a pretty hybrid flower. It really is just arbitrary proof of a good looking creation that is deemed award-able. Really more useful as something like a patent document. For some breeders who maintain scrupulous records it could be used as a road map for recreation of certain concepts. But if you look at what has happened with Catts, Dendrobiums, and Phales (especially since mericloning) the diversity of shape color form really has homogenized the genera into gross grouping of color forms. Names are virtually meaningless, and records are not kept for what I bet for 99% of plants produced and sold. Records are just not important enough to be included with these plants.

The vast amount of undocumented plant material is like anti-records when it starts getting mixed into collections of conserved material. Things are a little slower for Paphs than the above 3 genera since they just haven't made it into mass retail like the big 3, but mistakes have been made over the last 200 years, and priorities have changed a lot too.

I've often advocated something like the Species Survival Plan system developed by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums for tracking and record keeping of slippers. But this takes a lot of cooperation (difficult with the 200 year history of competition in the orchid world). And in many cases the cat is out of the bag so to speak with all the undocumented captive produced species plants out there.

Going full circle, back to the chestnut example, the only surviving American chestnuts will ultimately never be 100% American Chestnut, but along the way we will be happy to have something "mostly" American chestnut rather than nothing at all. So if I was faced with spicerianum becoming extinct in the wild, I guess I should be glad (truly) that Paph Bruno will still be there for us.


----------



## Pete (Jan 3, 2011)

what dot said. its a spicerianum with a flat dorsal that doesnt really recurve. at least not as much as spicerianum.


----------



## Pete (Jan 3, 2011)

breeders may have been trying to breed on from spicerianums with poor results due to the dorsal so then focused on just making a spicerianum on steroids first, to then breed on with


----------



## duane mcdowell (Dec 30, 2020)

Bruno is one of the very best plants for growing into a specimen easily. A great hybrid that shows the value of back-crosses.


----------

