# P. rothschildianum 'Borneo' FCC/AOS



## Justin (Jan 12, 2012)

In my eyes this is still the quintessential roth...


----------



## Fabrice (Jan 12, 2012)

The pouch is very original.

And Borneo will be always a part of rothschildianum story. The beginning of the story.


----------



## Roth (Jan 12, 2012)

Don't take it wrong, but I do not think this is Borneo at all. I am even sure otherwise in fact...

There has been a lot of divisions of Borneo, Charles E, etc... sold over the years, and many times over the last 25 years, some of Tonkin's plants Charles E x Borneo passed on as divisions of those two plants.

In fact, I always heard about Charles E that it is a 'bad flower'. Well, the original Charles Edwards was not so bad to my mind. I found back a picture by Alan Winthrop that should be around 30 years old here:







And to my mind that's quite a beautiful wild roth... Borneo was quite similar. In the 80's and 90's Norris Powell has been heavily involved in selling 'divisions' of Charles E, Borneo, Rex, all turned out to be bogus or pieces of wild roth that appeared in the trade in the 80's, some really not good.

At the same time I searched for Charles E 'genuine' picture, I found out back the picture of the fourth Mt Millais/Commander/Collenette rothschildianum story. Wyld Court was the fourth plant brought by Sheila Collenette along with Mt Millais, Commander and Cole(ne)tte, so here it is:






According to the history, rothschildianum 'Wyld Court' was very weak, bloomed only once or twice ( that's the photo), then died. Had it been grown better, I think it could have been very similar to Mt Millais or Commander...


----------



## NYEric (Jan 12, 2012)

Interesting pouch. sepals kind of weak.


----------



## berrywoodson (Jan 12, 2012)

Is 'Mt. Milais' and 'Commander' one in the same?


----------



## Justin (Jan 12, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm very confident it is the real McCoy. This division was via Sam Tsui. The flower matches the award picture. 

Do you have another photo of what you would consider the "real" Borneo?

Thanks.


----------



## W. Beetus (Jan 12, 2012)

Great! I like this clone of roth.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 12, 2012)

It does have a different and interesting pouch.


----------



## biothanasis (Jan 13, 2012)

Very nice!


----------



## paworsport (Jan 13, 2012)

Hi Justin 

nice roth, do you have a whole flower picture ? I know Borneo is large with straight petals it could be great to watch  Is the plant big in comparizon with "modern" roth ?


----------



## Fabrice (Jan 13, 2012)

Roth, the breaker of dreams!


----------



## emydura (Jan 13, 2012)

Very nice Justin. You would think Sam would know.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jan 13, 2012)

Hey Justin thanks for posting. Can you post the award photo so it can be compared?


----------



## Justin (Jan 13, 2012)

I"ll post some photos next week after the flower finishes opening up.


----------



## Roth (Jan 14, 2012)

emydura said:


> Very nice Justin. You would think Sam would know.



It is impossible for many plants to say if it is the real original plant or something else, even for Sam or whoever else.

Those plants have been in cultivation in the 70's, they went through dark ages in the 80's and 90's, and now many people have plants with the proper tag, but no way to know exactly what it is. Especially since most of those roths ran through Norris Powell, Spencer M Howard and a couple others, who were famous for selling seedlings as 'divisions' in those days.

Honestly, I know I have Mt Millais, very clearly. Eric Young Fondation through Christopher Bailes in 86, sold to Tokyo Orchids, then to me. That's a 'clear' path.

I 'think' I have Commander, as it came from Jim Binks collection, but I could not trace its ownership before that, though the plant matches perfectly, so does the flower. 

Most other Commander came either from Mike Tibbs ( who sold blooming size plants of Commander selfings as Commander), or from another source in Belgium ( Pol van Boostraten), who had one real and one fake clump... From that onwards, it would be very hard to know which one is the real one. I have divisions of both, one is like the one posted by lienluu ( a kind of Mt Millais selfing...), and the other one is very nice, good shape and color, but different from the UK Commander. So, today, no one could sell a division of Commander and claim it's the real one... There are 3 plants so far under that name, and some more from Mike Tibbs in the 90's.

Mt Millais, I bought it very expensive from Japan, because the ownership was clear. I would never have bought it from the USA, because the awards, and the photos of the Mt Millais sold in the USA are way different from the UK Mt Millais, both the awards painting, live bloom, and the photos at the WOC Glasgow.

One other nursery in Japan is 'sure' to have Mt Millais, they bought it from Mike Tibbs, at that time the EYOF agent in the 90's. There are divisions, and seedlings of that one around. It is very similar to Mt Millais, except that the plant is small ( about 50cm maximum leafspan, usually 30-40), and the flower is very small ( 20-24cm maximum). Grown together, I know they are still different.

The same story occured with Borneo, Charles E, and even famous plants like Val, Althea ( and some others of the Charles E x Borneo crosses, awarded plants). In fact some of the real awarded Charles E x Borneo plants were stunning, not as good as the Rex x Mt Millais, but really excellent, and very dark. After that Norris Powell went involved in the Charles E, Borneo, Janet deal, he got many seedlings from the Tonkins, divisions here and there, and it started to be a maelstrom in his nursery, sold seedlings as divisions, unscreened plants as selected... 

Ray Rands used to have Borneo, but he got two different ones too, from Powell. He had on the other side the real 'Rex' as well.

Many of those plants went through too many hands, including unscrupulous ones, to be sure that they are real divisions of the awarded ones. That's why I bought only 4 awarded vintage roths, because I am not sure and no one can be.

I saw once a photo of rothschildianum Charles E ( that was, in those days Charles Edwards or Charles Edwin Edwards, those were the same plant to start with), and that was a good, well balanced flower, with a quite nice dorsal. I saw the black and white picture that I posed here, and that's again the same as the color photo I saw years ago, nice dorsal, horizontal petals, easy to grow ( Norris Powerll had a genuine division with at least 50 growths... and many clumps of less good ones too...). The ones I saw live had a crippled dorsal, and the petals did not hold horizontally...

As for Borneo, I am sure I still have a printed photo somewhere, have to look for it. But there were photos in the AOS bulletin ( in the early 80's), and I remember that first it had perfectly horizontal petals, and the dorsal was really nice, tall and quite wide, not flame shaped. That's why I have a doubt about that one...


----------



## Roth (Jan 14, 2012)

berrywoodson said:


> Is 'Mt. Milais' and 'Commander' one in the same?



No, they are really different plants, but from the same colony.



Justin said:


> The flower matches the award picture.
> 
> Do you have another photo of what you would consider the "real" Borneo?
> 
> Thanks.



I would be curious to see the award pictures again, my CD has disappeared here.

In fact one of the things that is not fit with the Borneo that I saw, I just realize it, is that the lines in the dorsal of Borneo go from bottom to top, not interrupted, and the dorsal has a different shape. 

I found a picture of Borneo x self here:

http://www.ladyslipper.com/1889j.htm

which is quite similar to what I remember of Borneo, especially the dorsal shape, the lines, and the horizontal petals. Borneo itself had nearly perfectly horizontal petals.


----------



## lienluu (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## tim (Jan 14, 2012)

xavier do you think mustafa and a&p has legit mt. millais?


----------



## SlipperKing (Jan 14, 2012)

Clearly there are differences between the award photo Lienluu posted and your blooming Justin. Sam is a honest person but he's not God. There is no way anyone could know until comparing their blooming to the award records. I have to back up Xavier on the personality of Mr. Powell, God rest his soul, for I had similar dealings with him as have others here I'm sure. A good example of misleading buyers by Mr. Powell was the plant Maudiae 'Los Osos'. He sold selfings as the clone 'Los Osos'


----------



## Justin (Jan 14, 2012)

Here are more pictures. Mine is not the best blooming but sure looks like the same plant to me.


----------



## emydura (Jan 14, 2012)

Putting the third flower against the award photo I'm struggling to see much of a difference. The stripes on the dorsal look almost identical. So what are the key differences Xavier?

Differences in culture can result in variation in flowering. My roth flowered for the 2nd time this year and looked nothing like the first. The petals in the 2nd flowering were a lot more horizontal. Same thing happened with my Lady Isabel currently in flower. The petals are very droopy compared to previous flowerings where they were very horizontal.


----------



## Rick (Jan 14, 2012)

I guess what seems to be freaking people out is the tessellated yellow pouch coloring of this blooming compared to almost solid chestnut red of the earlier blooming.

The tessellated coloring is very interesting and attractive in its own way, but really different from the typical redder pouches.


----------



## Justin (Jan 14, 2012)

Sorry the first picture i posted to start this thread didn't give a good representation. I was too excited to wait for it to open.


----------



## Justin (Jan 14, 2012)

The pouch is the same as the third photo i posted, which if you look carefully appears to be the same blooming from the award picture with different photo & different lighting.

Also I don't grow in a greenhouse. The petals didn't extend due to low humidity in my house. The angles are precisely the same, however, even the slightly tweaked angle on the right petal. Also see the short ridges on the bottom of the petals just to the side of the pouch. Other aspects of the flower look consistent as well.


----------



## paphioboy (Jan 15, 2012)

Roth said:


> Norris Powerll had a genuine division with at least 50 growths... and many clumps of less good ones too...



Pray tell... How does one get a roth to grow into a 50-growth clump?


----------



## Roth (Jan 15, 2012)

emydura said:


> Putting the third flower against the award photo I'm struggling to see much of a difference. The stripes on the dorsal look almost identical. So what are the key differences Xavier?



Well, the third photo from Justin is not his plant, but a real division of Borneo owned by Golden Gate Orchids ( who got the real one actually...)

Here is that photo with the credentials.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericinsf/5569721466/



> Differences in culture can result in variation in flowering. My roth flowered for the 2nd time this year and looked nothing like the first. The petals in the 2nd flowering were a lot more horizontal. Same thing happened with my Lady Isabel currently in flower. The petals are very droopy compared to previous flowerings where they were very horizontal.



It's normal, because both are technically 'hybrids'. Roth Borneo, Mt Millais, Dou Fong, etc... are very homozygous, because they each come from one specific colony. I had experience at a point selecting wild collected roth. The growers grew them way too warm, and usually bloomed them on a nearly rootless plant. However the dorsal as an example never showed any variation related to the culture. Like the awards picture and the Golden Gate picture of Borneo, we can see easily that it is the same plant.

The seedlings made between two colonies or two species can sometimes exhibit much broader variation in my experience from bloom to bloom. However, some traits are permanent no matter the blooming. Like I have to see a well grown sanderianum with 30 cm petals producing on a subsequent bloom 90cm petals... 

The striping and pouch color of a roth do not vary much whether the plant is well grown or not... Look at yours David, the stripes are the same on both blooming. In the case of Justin plant vs. the real Borneo, the striping on Justin plant are 'interrupted', where the real Borneo has stripes going from down to up. That's why it is very clear that Justin plant is not a division of the real Borneo... not to mention the petal stance, pouch pattern... It is either a Charles E. x Borneo or another wild type, but not the Borneo straight.



Justin said:


> The pouch is the same as the third photo i posted, which if you look carefully appears to be the same blooming from the award picture with different photo & different lighting.



Actually no, the third photo and the awards photo are about 35 years apart, but the flower is still the same so it proves my point... The third photo has been taken by Eric Hunt at Golden Gate Orchids in 2011... the award photo in 1977.



> Also I don't grow in a greenhouse. The petals didn't extend due to low humidity in my house. The angles are precisely the same, however, even the slightly tweaked angle on the right petal. Also see the short ridges on the bottom of the petals just to the side of the pouch. Other aspects of the flower look consistent as well.



That's not correct either. A roth like that, grown under suboptimal condition, would still have the same dorsal stripe pattern as the awarded one. Just count how many lines in the dorsal of the Borneo award picture, the Golden Gate picture, and yours, then it is easy to realize they are not the same plant... We can try to find some points that looks like the award picture, here and there, but that's not the same plant. It is most likely a Charles E x Borneo vanilla type, and if you google rothschildianum Charles E x Borneo you get indeed plants similar to yours.

Now, there is another aspect of the orchid trade. In many instances, divisions pass from one trader to the next without being bloomed in the middle ( no matter what they say). Micranthum is one example, I have seen plants offered with a picture of my plant, by some very reputable sellers. I asked them, and they bought a clump, that photo, and were happily selling divisions of that clump ( that they did not bloom), with a photo of a near perfect, chunky micranthum belonging to me. For things like roth Borneo and Charles E, there has been and is a large number of 'divisions' on the market, even today, but I would not trust any. If you want to get the real Borneo, try Golden Gate Orchids for sure, same for Charles E. I am out of options for Janet, Chester Hill, etc... but for all the other sources that sell such vintage roth, they went back to two sources ( no matter what they say or said) :

Norris Powell, before and after his death. Those plants, some are real, maybe, most are bogus.
Val Tonkin when she liquidated her nursery. There has been a lot of tag swaps, some unclear tags, and some traders happily 'fixed up' the tags with what they believed to be the 'proper name'. Some others bought a big batch of roth at grossly discounted price, and put nice tags to sell the things...

As for AandP rothschildianum Mt Millais, I would need to look up the photo of the award. However the photo they had on their website, as well as another photo of Mt Millais on another very famous website, were clearly not Mt Millais. They were a yellow and chestnut roth, very nice indeed, but not from the same colonies as Mt Millais...

In the USA, everything that came after Mike Tibbs went involved as the exclusive agent of the Eric Young to sell overseas, until he stopped in the early 2000, can be, and for many things is, bogus. There are even fake FCC and AM phrags around in the USA and Japan, that were not divisions but sister plants.


----------



## Justin (Jan 15, 2012)

Thanks Xavier. I appreciate your knowledge and you are entitled to your view; however, the fact that fake divisions have been circulated by some sellers does not mean that there are no true divisions in existence. 

Based on this blooming I still don't see enough evidence to show that these are different plants.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 15, 2012)

paphioboy said:


> Pray tell... How does one get a roth to grow into a 50-growth clump?



Powell's nursery was located in probably the best climate for growing. His well water quality was perfect. And he was a good grower just not so trustworthy about labels. I think in Los Osos you could grow a roth in your garden year round, never too hot or cold.


----------

