# Does anyone believe that a true Phragmipaphium has been made?



## kentuckiense (Apr 3, 2007)

On his excellent site, Rob Z. has a few photos for two crosses: http://robzuiderwijk.nl/phragmipaphium/hybrids/hybrids_phrphm.asp

To me, the Phrag. besseae x Paph. micranthum just looks like a cochlo hybrid. Just look at the buds and the staminode. It just SCREAMS cochlo. Also, Hane's Magic is not convincing in the least. I'm assuming we're looking at deliberate misleadings or flasking errors.


----------



## smartie2000 (Apr 3, 2007)

I would agree with you...I've seen those photos before and doubted them. Have they looked at their chromosomes?


----------



## Roy (Apr 3, 2007)

If a Phragmipaphium exists then we may need to expect the second coming. As mention, there have been a few examples displayed. One notable one was introduced by John Haynes many years ago, noted in Slipperorchid forum 27/10/05 called Haynes Magic = Phrag Albopurpureum x Paph stonei. A very poor pic is in the book by Catherine Cash. Its a huge plant but looks very much like a P.stonei. Never seen in public either !!
The rest shown & mentioned on other websites, to me, are pure Paphs.
Phrag kovachii may change things, the proof will be in the pudding. I suppose one can live in hope. ( good name for a town )


----------



## Ron-NY (Apr 3, 2007)

smartie2000 said:


> I would agree with you...I've seen those photos before and doubted them. Have they looked at their chromosomes?


I know that Hanes Magic was looked at chromosomewise and the cells only showed 26 chromosomes of the Paph pod parent


----------



## Heather (Apr 3, 2007)

Personally, I sort of hope it never happens...


----------



## NYEric (Apr 3, 2007)

Abomination!!!


----------



## kentuckiense (Apr 3, 2007)

NYEric said:


> Abomination!!!


You don't have to add a non sequitur to every damn thread.


----------



## kentuckiense (Apr 3, 2007)

Heather said:


> Personally, I sort of hope it never happens...



Why not? If it _can_ happen, I want to see it? Why? I'm curious to see what it would look like!


----------



## Heather (Apr 3, 2007)

kentuckiense said:


> Why not? If it _can_ happen, I want to see it? Why? I'm curious to see what it would look like!



I dunno, in my mind it's like crossing a cat with a dog. I just don't like the idea of it. JMHO of course.


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 3, 2007)

kentuckiense said:


> You don't have to add a non sequitur to every damn thread.



I do.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Apr 3, 2007)

Please visit Dr Tanaka's site: 
http://www.orchid.or.jp/orchid/people/tanaka/Special/enbxm.html

Photos of besseae x malipoense. There is a remarkable similarity to the independantly propagated (besseae x micranthum) mentioned above. I have personally seen (besseae x delenatii) . 

I am reluctant to say these are not really Phragmipaphiums. True that in photos the Paph traits seem to dominate. But the plants didn't appear to be completely normal Paph plants in person. There needs to be more study. The plants I've seen did not grow normally. AND, keep in mind. Just because you have never seen one before, don't be so quick to say impossible or can't be done. Plants in general are much more tolerant of abberant chromosome configurations than mammals. Some really screwed up, miss match genetic configurations can and do survive. 

I have not owned any of the Phragmipahiums I have seen, so I can not say with certainty exactly what it was I was looking at and can not "go back" and get more info for you. But I do believe these hybrids were made, and "something" grew and bloomed. What the genetic make up was of the progeny is I can not say, but it "wern't normal" when I saw it. 
Leo


----------



## ohio-guy (Apr 3, 2007)

Wouldn't it be more likely to work (in theory at least) if both parents were 4n? 

Then the resulting plant would have a full genetic complement from each parent. 
I vaguely remember from college biology that crossing the 4n plants of different species was easier to do. Anyone have any info on that?


----------



## practicallyostensible (Apr 3, 2007)

ohio-guy said:


> Wouldn't it be more likely to work (in theory at least) if both parents were 4n?
> 
> Then the resulting plant would have a full genetic complement from each parent.



I thought that the problem with 4n x 4n hybrids is aneuploidy prevalence, and susbequent deformation, due to the different chromosome counts. I may be making that up though.


----------



## paphiness (Apr 3, 2007)

In theory, it should be possible to do a cross between Phrags and Paphs. 

The way to verify whether the progeny is truly a mix of these two genera is not by chromosome counts because Paph chromosomes would likely look just like Phrag chromosomes. 

You would need to get DNA sequences that identify a given species, whether Paph or Phrag. So for a besseae x malipoense cross, you would first need to have some DNA sequences that are fingerprints for besseae as a species, and fingerprints for malipoense as a species.

The way to think of DNA is like a giant chain of letters billions of letters long. The letters are only A, C, G, T (the nucleotide components of DNA). 

Here's a very short example. Imagine that the following sequence is a fragment of DNA from Phrag. besseae:

...ACTTCGACT*T*GCTACGTTC*G*ACATTGCAG*C*GTCCAGTGC*C*TGCGTTCAG*T*...

and this sequence is a fragment of DNA from Paph. malipoense:

...TTCGTCTTT*A*CGTCTTTCG*A*ATCTAACTG*T*TGTTTCCAA*C*ACTCGTCTT*C*...

(Every tenth character is in bold)

What you'd be looking for is some set of short sequences that uniquely identify a given species. For example, for besseae, you might have on the above example a short segment between position 10 and 20 that is ONLY found in besseae. (i.e., *A*CGTCTTTCG*A*)

Similarly, for malipoense, your research may determine that there is a short segment that is unique between position 35 and 45. (i.e., TCCAA*C*ACTCG)

Now, if you were to examine the plants from a putative besseae x malipoense cross, you would look for the presence of BOTH of the unique identifying sequences from the parent species. 

If you find them both present, then you'll have demonstrated that the plant is indeed the result of a cross between besseae and malipoense (barring experimental error, of course).

In real life, it's not quite *this* simple, but this is the idea in general...

If you're interested in matters of orchid genetics, please check out my posts at www.paphinessorchids.com.

DY Hung, Ph.D.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 3, 2007)

The most logical explanation for "Phragmipaphiums" I have seen goes back to the original explanation of Hanes Magic, written maybe 20 years ago (I think in the AOS Bulletin...not sure at this point...) Apparently, the "hybrid" is a paph, that managed to somehow incorporate a few phrag genes..(plasmids, maybe? there seem to be more and more evidence of extra-chromosomal genes that float around in an organisms genome). Make the most sense to me, even after seeing the other "phragmipaphium" pictures...Take care, Eric


----------



## kentuckiense (Apr 3, 2007)

I can buy it if the explanation was just that apomixis was occuring... But then you'd just get a clone of the mother plant. Who knows.


----------



## Drorchid (Aug 9, 2007)

I always thought that perhaps Phragmipaphium Hanes Magic was a true Phragmipahium, but now that I looked at the pictures, to me it looks like Paph. Frank Booth (= stonei x parishii); especially if you look at the staminode; to me it screams parishii hybrid.

Here is a picture of Paph. Frank Booth (from slipperorchids.info):

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphprimaries/PaphFrankBooth1.jpg

and here of Phragmipaphium Hanes Magic (from Phragweb) :

http://robzuiderwijk.nl/phragmipaph...phm.asp?photo_id=744&phrphm_name=Hanes'+Magic

what do you guys think?

I have tried many times to cross Phrag's with Paph's but have never been succesfull. Would it not be great if you could cross Paph. sanderianum with Phrag. caudatum or Phrag. popowii?, or Phrag. kovachii with Paph. micranthum or Paph. vietnamense?

Robert


----------



## Heather (Aug 9, 2007)

I agree, That Hane's Magic reminds me a little of Eva Weigner (which is stonei x haynaldianum) as well.


----------



## parvi_17 (Aug 9, 2007)

Well that's a really cool-looking plant, but it looks pure Paph to me.


----------



## Magicboy (Aug 9, 2007)

I have thougt about the crossing of Paph. sanderianum and Phrag. popowii to! And maybe also Paph. sanderianum x Phrag. kovachii? I think crossing these two generas would make a great improvement in colour and shape on both generas hybrids.


----------



## bwester (Aug 9, 2007)

you can see the blue light used to give that Hanes Magic its strange look reflected on the wall in the background.
definitley a paph hybrid.


----------



## DukeBoxer (Aug 9, 2007)

Blake, you're right, it looks like someone just did something to it in Photoshop or something, the picture doesn't even look right...


----------



## Rob Zuiderwijk (Aug 9, 2007)

DukeBoxer said:


> Blake, you're right, it looks like someone just did something to it in Photoshop or something, the picture doesn't even look right...


 
Hi,

There are on my website two photos of the same plant, made at the same show/meeting, which where made by two different people. I personally think that the other photos has better colours.
See:
http://www.phragweb.info/phragmipaphium/hybrids/photos/display_thumbnails_phrphm.asp?phrphm_id=406&phrphm_name=Hanes%27+Magic

All the best,

Rob


----------



## bwester (Aug 9, 2007)

Rob,
Whats your take on it though?


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 9, 2007)

DukeBoxer said:


> Blake, you're right, it looks like someone just did something to it in Photoshop or something, the picture doesn't even look right...


I even took the photos into Photoshop to see if I could correct the colors. The one on the left isn't bad, but the one on the right is way off. I suspect, since they are of the same plant taken by two different people, that the color error is in the light/film chosen. Digital cameras wouldn't help unless they had an accurate white balance setting.

It's hard for me to compare these two photos with Gilda's because the color is so bad on the two. Sorry, Rob.


----------



## Rick Barry (Aug 9, 2007)

It seems curious that more photos aren't available. It's certainly not for lack of curiosity.

I can't begin to explain exactly how it happens, but I suspect they are chimeras.

Regards,
Rick


----------



## gonewild (Aug 9, 2007)

Looking at both photos from a photographers view they both appear to be taken with a low resolution camera, perhaps an old one? Anybody know when the images were made?
Also both pictures appear to have been heavily manipulated with an image program which was probably the creators attempt to make poor images better. Since the images are at the very least suspect, they can't really be used to determine if the actual hybrid exists.

Personally I don't see the Phrag part of the hybrid, it just looks like a Paph to me.


----------



## dave b (Aug 9, 2007)

Hogwash i tell ya. Might as well be looking at the infamous Sasquatch photograph.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Aug 10, 2007)

Sadly, the Mexipedium x Phrag. fischeri ended up being very Phrag dominant as well.

I won't be convinced either way until I personally make the cross and raise the progeny...so it might be a while 

Jon


----------



## rdlsreno (Aug 10, 2007)

I do agree that they are all Paph hybrids!!

Ramon


----------



## Rick Barry (Aug 10, 2007)

I'd hate to see anyone rush to judgement. Both John Haynes and Fumi Sugiyama were/are growers and breeders of sterling reputations. I can't believe they would knowingly perpetuate a fraud.
It would be nice to hear from Bob Wellenstein, Tom Kalina or Jerry Fischer to get their take.

Regards,
Rick


----------



## gonewild (Aug 10, 2007)

Rick Barry said:


> I'd hate to see anyone rush to judgement. Both John Haynes and Fumi Sugiyama were/are growers and breeders of sterling reputations. I can't believe they would knowingly perpetuate a fraud.
> It would be nice to hear from Bob Wellenstein, Tom Kalina or Jerry Fischer to get their take.
> 
> Regards,
> Rick



I want to make it clear that I was not suggesting anyone was trying to perpetuate a fraud. My comments about the pictures were not meant to imply that they had been manipulated to look more like a Phrag. The intent was rather to point out that the pictures were not of high enough quality and most likely not original camera takes and therefore should not be used to determine if the hybrid was in fact true.

The hybridizer may well have used inter generic pollen in an attempt to make seed. But I doubt the Phrag pollen was what set the seed based on the flower shape alone.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 10, 2007)

The best photos of Hane's Magic are in the original article, I believe it was March, 1985 in the AOS Bulletin (now Orchids). I may be off by a month, or even a year, but my memory is generally good...about all that's left of my mind. It looks like a paph to me, alway's did. By the way, as I recall, phrag chromosomes look different from paph chromosomes...I think they are smaller...but I may be wrong on that point...can't remember where I saw the articles(s?) comparing the chromosomes, (so much for my good memory.....) but I distinctly remember paphs having larger chromosomes. Take care, Eric


----------



## Magicboy (Aug 11, 2007)

Maye the Phrag. besseae 'Taiko' BM/JOGA x Paph. micranthum can be this Paph. crossing and they misslabeled it.

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphprimaries/PaphRogerSander1.jpg

compare

http://robzuiderwijk.nl/phragmipaph...hoto_phrphm.asp?photo_id=750&phrphm_name=n.r.


----------



## VAAlbert (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't see Phrag in these plants... Cochlopetalum, yes...

Anyone hear of a Mex x Phrag cross that actually looks real?

BW,

V.


----------



## bwester (Aug 30, 2007)

I have heard mex x phrag has been done successfully but without a believable pic, I put it up with the phragmipaphiums.


----------



## NYEric (Aug 31, 2007)

I don't see why these crosses can't be made.


----------



## Heather (Aug 31, 2007)

Eric, it's the same reason we don't cross pigs with goats.


----------



## Magicboy (Aug 31, 2007)

Heather said:


> Eric, it's the same reason we don't cross pigs with goats.



But the breeders gladly cross Vanda with Laelia, Brasavolae, Phalaenopsis and many other genuses. oke:


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 31, 2007)

Magicboy said:


> But the breeders gladly cross Vanda with Laelia, Brasavolae, Phalaenopsis and many other genuses. oke:



Vanda-Laelia and Vanda-Brassavola have never been done and it will likely stay that way.


----------



## Magicboy (Aug 31, 2007)

I think I was a little distracted when I wrote that I meant Cattleya with Laelia, Brassavolae and Vanda with Phalaenopsis, Renanthera, Ascocentrum and many others.

Sorry!


----------



## NYEric (Aug 31, 2007)

If it's possible and the plant isn't some kind of toxic/lethal virus vector then why not. Heather if Chef Morimoto prepared the pigoat wouldn't you eat it?


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 31, 2007)

Magicboy said:


> I think I was a little distracted when I wrote that I meant Cattleya with Laelia, Brassavolae and Vanda with Phalaenopsis, Renanthera, Ascocentrum and many others.
> 
> Sorry!


Haha that's acceptable then!

However, I'd like to warn against trying to equate the intergeneric breeding of Paph/Phrag with that of Cattleya/Laelia(or whatever they are now). It is important to remember that the divisions that create genera are human constructs and are rarely "equal" with each other. For instance, the fact that Cattleya and Laelia are readily capable of interbreeding should not be used to infer equal breeding potential with Paph/Phrag. I need to brush up on my orchid evolution, but I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium have been reproductively isolated from one another (and thus evolving separately) for far longer than Laelia and Cattleya or Vanda and Phalaenopsis.


----------



## NYEric (Aug 31, 2007)

kentuckiense said:


> I need to brush up on my orchid evolution, but I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium have been reproductively isolated from one another (and thus evolving separately) for far longer than Laelia and Cattleya or Vanda and Phalaenopsis.


If that's true then wouldn't the PaphxPhrag be impossible.
Evolution=Blasphemy!


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 31, 2007)

NYEric said:


> If that's true then wouldn't the PaphxPhrag be impossible.


Not necessarily, but it's my personal opinion that Paph x Phrag is next to impossible.



NYEric said:


> Evolution=Blasphemy!


Get new material, _please_.


----------



## bwester (Aug 31, 2007)

I think we should be like those crazy Soviet scientists of the cold war era and make something extremely outlandish like a paph micranthum with the ass of a guinea pig grafted to it..... assmapaphium 
:rollhappy:


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 31, 2007)

I can't imagine a true phragmipaphium. I've seen photo's of the chromosomes, and they are very different, in both number and size...I think Phrag chromosomes are smaller, but it may be vice-versa. I cannot imagine these different sets of chromosomes pairing up successfully. On the other hand, is there a possibility of Selenipedium by Phrag or Mexipedium? Its worth it for the weirdness......Take care, Eric


----------



## Roy (Sep 2, 2007)

Eric M, I believe your post is near correct. I asked the question of Phrag x paph of Dr Guido Braem once and his reply was that the genetics difference between the two would not allow them to mate. 
Roy.


----------



## NYEric (Sep 2, 2007)

I like to hope that the crosses are possible because that would make more beautiful plants available .


----------

