# Paph phillipinense var roebellinii



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

The last of my recent Paph flowerings and I will go out with one of my favourites. First time I have ever gotten more than 4 flowers on a multi. But then the person who sold me this division told me he would get 8-9 flowers on a spike (his growths were double mine in size so I don't doubt him), so it is probably not that much of an achievement. I was hoping to photograph all 5 flowers open at once, but the fifth flower hasn't opened yet and the first 2 flowers are browning off. Flowers don't last long on this species.

Anyway, less than 4 hours to Christmas. The pork, turkey and chicken are ready to be roasted. Everyone, have a good one.

Merry Christmas

David


Paph phillipinense var roebellinii


----------



## TyroneGenade (Dec 24, 2009)

Lovely plant, David. Did you get this from Ian Walters of Burleigh Park?


----------



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

TyroneGenade said:


> Lovely plant, David. Did you get this from Ian Walters of Burleigh Park?



No Tyrone. I got it off Ray Clements from Tinonee Orchids. He saw it in the US when he was over there 15 or so years ago. He liked it so much he went to all the trouble of importing it back to Australia. I got a division off his plant. I couldn't believe the size of his growths. The leaves must have been something like 60 cm long. I'd always thought roebellinii was more compact. Anyway my subsequent growths have never gotten close to this which in some ways is not a bad thing. I couldn't fit many orchids in my glasshouse if they were all this size.

David


----------



## Shiva (Dec 24, 2009)

Nice plant and flowers David.


----------



## JeanLux (Dec 24, 2009)

lovely blooms, very fine color!!! and (traditional Question) how long are the petals? 
Just past 12 in Lux! Have a very good time! Jean


----------



## Clark (Dec 24, 2009)

Really sweet!


----------



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

JeanLux said:


> lovely blooms, very fine color!!! and (traditional Question) how long are the petals?
> Just past 12 in Lux! Have a very good time! Jean



I just stumbled up to the glasshouse in the dark to measure the petal length -17 cm.

Time for me to go to bed. Just waiting for my daughter to go to sleep so I can eat the cookies and drink the milk that she left for Santa.

David


----------



## Gilda (Dec 24, 2009)

Beautiful !:clap::drool: Great photo too ! Can you or Slipperfan give pointers on how to get a good picture of long petaled multis ? I never can do them justice. TIA !


----------



## etex (Dec 24, 2009)

WOW!! Awesome blooms!! The photos are great!


----------



## GuRu (Dec 24, 2009)

Very impressive blooms and a nice photos as well.

Merry X-mas from Germany, rudolf


----------



## goldenrose (Dec 24, 2009)

:clap: :drool: :drool: Worth any amount of space in the GH! :clap::clap:


Gilda said:


> Beautiful !:clap::drool: Great photo too ! Can you or Slipperfan give pointers on how to get a good picture of long petaled multis ? I never can do them justice. TIA !


you're not alone!


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Dec 24, 2009)

Wow, that's beautiful. I love the way the pouch color just pops. :clap:


----------



## Rick (Dec 24, 2009)

Very red in this clone. Very pretty!


----------



## paphioland (Dec 24, 2009)

I like it thanks


----------



## jblanford (Dec 24, 2009)

WOW!! That looks great David, thanks.... Jim.


----------



## tenman (Dec 24, 2009)

Roebbelenii is my favorite paph species. Great pics. The plant size may be due to some philippinense in its background.


----------



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

Gilda said:


> Beautiful !:clap::drool: Great photo too ! Can you or Slipperfan give pointers on how to get a good picture of long petaled multis ? I never can do them justice. TIA !



I'm sure Dot will have better insights than me. I haven't photographed a lot of long petaled Paphs. 

I think for Paphs in general it is good to step back a bit when photographing. Not be so obsessed with closeups. As a rule I like to show the plant in the photo. It gives the flowers some perspective and adds another element of interest. As growers we are often as interested as each others plants as the flowers. I think this is even more important for the long petalled Paphs which are better seen from afar. 

One problem with the long petalled Paphs is that unless you stake them they tend to naturally arch. This can look nice but can be difficult to photograph. You find you have to photograph from one side or the other which means half the flowers are facing the opposite way. Plus the flowers are often at the same level and hence are covering each other. This all loses a bit of impact. So some sort of staking maybe necessary. I was away for a while this year and hence the spike was well developed before I could stake it. So it is sort of half and half. It doesn't look too bad really. Here is a photograph from last year where I staked it from the beginning so that the spike is totally upright. The flowers are probably a bit better displayed as they are all facing the same direction and are well spaced. Still I think this years semi-arching photo looks nicer. Better composition as the plant and flowers move diagonally through the scene - the plant in the left hand corner with the spike moving to the right hand corner. So maybe a mixture of the two is needed. I think you need to stake it to some degree. You certainly want the flowers above the leaves. I currently have a Berenice which is nearly finished opening that hasn't been staked. The flowers are well below the level of the pot. I have no idea how I'm going to photograph it. It won't look good whatever I do. 

You also need to experiment a bit with the composition to get the best look. Trial and error.

David


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 24, 2009)

Gorgeous plant and photos, David.

You also gave very good suggestions for photographing them. I'd only add a couple things: Tripod and make sure your fans are off. Also, I try to set the plant in such a way that one flower is facing the camera, letting the others go their way naturally. It doesn't always work out that the best flower is the one facing the camera...


----------



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

SlipperFan said:


> Gorgeous plant and photos, David.
> 
> You also gave very good suggestions for photographing them. I'd only add a couple things: Tripod and make sure your fans are off. Also, I try to set the plant in such a way that one flower is facing the camera, letting the others go their way naturally. It doesn't always work out that the best flower is the one facing the camera...



Yes, tripods, shutter release cable or timer are all important and you don't want those long petals fluttering in the breeze. I agree about having a single flower facing the camera and working the rest of the composition around it. Having flowers coming off at slightly different angles to your central flower will most likely enhance the photo rather than detract from it.

This is an example of the problems of not staking a long petalled hybrid. All 3 flowers are at much the same height, the first flower is hidden behind the second while I'm looking at the third flower from behind. Terrible composition. Not much I could do about it. By the time I got back from holidays it was too late to stake.

David


----------



## John M (Dec 24, 2009)

This is an extremely attractive clone. You did well to get a division of it from your friend. Congrats on blooming it so nicely!


----------



## emydura (Dec 24, 2009)

John M said:


> This is an extremely attractive clone. You did well to get a division of it from your friend. Congrats on blooming it so nicely!



It cost me a bit. But worth every cent given the flowers and its vigour. I have flowered a seedling of the roebellinii cross "Grace" x "Candor Red Streamers" which seems to be a famous cross. It was nowhere near as good as the clone on this post. 

David


----------



## musiclovertony (Dec 24, 2009)

That is very gorgeous! i'm in awe!


----------



## Wendy (Dec 24, 2009)

I love it....absolutely GORGEOUS!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2009)

if thats a roebelenii, then what is a type?


----------



## JeanLux (Dec 25, 2009)

Thanks for the photo tips Dot and David!!!! Jean


----------



## emydura (Dec 25, 2009)

Pete said:


> if thats a roebelenii, then what is a type?



Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.

David


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 25, 2009)

Super plant David. I'd lie to see you get up to the 7-8 flower count


----------



## Pete (Dec 25, 2009)

> Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.


thats exactly what i was saying...


----------



## NYEric (Dec 25, 2009)

Very nice for a multifloral paph!  Thanx for sharing.


----------



## tenman (Dec 25, 2009)

emydura said:


> Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.
> 
> David



Actually, numerous taxonomists do recognize it. The problem was with the ill-conceived notion of subsuming it into philippinense in the '80's books - the main reason being the presence of what's called a 'hybrid swarm' of intermediates between the two species, a common phenomenon in the orchid world. But for some reason in this one case someone used it as a reason to lump; similar reasoning in Cattleya would result in there only being a couple of cattleya species as most of them have these hybrid swarms, too. 

Unfortunately, this ill-advised move has led to much interbreeding amongst them (roebbelenii is the source of the twisted petals, absent in true 100% phils as seen in Koopowitz's first OD checklist) to the point there are few if any pure examples left in culture now. And many collceted plants of the hybrid swarm have been passed off as the species too.

A pity. Roebbelinii is so compact, so beautiful, and blooms usually at Christmastime. It's my favorite slipper, but I don't care for philippinense at all.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 26, 2009)

Here is philippinense var. *philippinense.* Although not a great pic it shows what my impression of the varity is from so many years ago. Found it on the website:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rainforest-orchids.co.uk/USERIMAGES/Paphiopedilum%2520philippinense%2520var%2520philippinense%2520edit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rainforest-orchids.co.uk/page33.htm&usg=__7rw7JfC_vCs1gE6AmanPgGc8tDQ=&h=675&w=900&sz=39&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=qhLLK0UPzMPp9M:&tbnh=110&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpaphiopedilum%2Bphilippinense%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8 Petals held out at a 45 degree +/- angle and fairly untwisted.






HERE IS A SECOND ONE


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 26, 2009)

Thanks, Rick. It looks like my philippinense is really roebellinii.


----------



## Wendy (Dec 27, 2009)

I have both of them and hopefully they bloom together this year...then I can post comparison shots.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 27, 2009)

That sounds great Wendy. I have a Paph philippinense var. laevigatum that I haven't seen bloom in years. It almost died but has come back and is close to blooming once again. maybe I'll get to post it soon as well.


----------



## rdlsreno (Dec 27, 2009)

Very Nice! love the picture!

Ramon


----------



## emydura (Dec 27, 2009)

Here is my flat petalled phillipinense that flowered for me a couple of years back. I expect it will flower again for me next season.

I don't believe that only the true roebellinii has twisted petals. Phillipinense is a very widespread and variable species. Cribb states that the longer pendent petals of roebellinii is the only character which distingusihes it consistently from phillipinense. And as he states this is not sufficient to warrant species status. Cribb also has photos and drawings of phillipinense in situ and they all have twisted petals. My philippinense (laevigatum form) also has twisted petals.

David


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 27, 2009)

David, that's only true if you believe Cribb.


----------



## Bobc (Dec 27, 2009)

very nice. :clap:


----------



## tenman (Dec 27, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> David, that's only true if you believe Cribb.



It's not so much that I don't believe him, it's just that looking at intermediates in the hybrid swarm and calling them philippinense doesn't show anything.


----------



## valenzino (Dec 28, 2009)

I think the only difference is the origin of plants....roebellinii is from borneo.I've seen a lot of wild philip. and all different...some veery long twisted petaled from philippines....some short twisted petaled from borneo...is so variable....at the time was described different cause a few varieties were known...and so taxonomists can play.....


----------



## arcticshaun (Dec 28, 2009)

I've always preferred roebelenii myself and this one is a beautiful example. 

Shaun


----------



## Pete (Dec 29, 2009)

Great Discussion! I agree with most of you. i share the idea of a true _philippinense var. phillippinense_ having shorter petals, with less twists, held at a wider stance, also the plants are usually much bigger. _philippinense var. roebelenii_ typically with longer, more cork screwed petals and a much smaller leafspan, petals are not really held at an angle at all, moreso just straight pendent also blooming on more compact plants. 
In terms of the hybrid swarm and whats a _philipinense_ and whats not it all depends on what kind of taxonomic views you have. some people say ahh they are all just phili's and its a variable widespread species, some will call them good species! many will just be happy to have them held at varietal status. but if a different variety, not a diff. species, is blooming close enough to the other variety and they cross polinate and the progeny that appear in the hybrid swarm populations show phenotypic characteristics intermediate of the two varieties, but still very similar to both, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME THING. it is just evolution. were just catching this glimpse of time, if all those jungles still exist in 250 more years, we would see that many of these species will have evolved so much that they may become unrecognizable. 
imagine if the thai forests and jungles that have all the brachypetalums were untouched for another 250 years, the continued hybridizing between _concolor_ and _bellatulum_, and the whole _niveum/ang-thong/godefroyae/leaucochilum _complex would be insane.
i think the brazilians have an interesting view on this kind of stuff with way they look at _Laelia purpurata_. here in the states we are so obsessed with which form it is or isnt, (i.e. _anelata_, _carnea_, _shusteriana_, _werkhauseri_...)and keeping it that form.. and down there they know what forms they are but they cross them all together and dont thing twice about it. ive seen _roxio_-_violetas_ and _flammeas_ crossed together that would look like a hybrid here in the states...


----------



## Leo Schordje (Dec 29, 2009)

We have to remember, context is everything. :evil: If you are speaking as a taxonomist, there is only one name that counts, Paph philippinense. If a taxonomist uses any other name they are likely to be considered less than competent by other taxonomists.  Most of us are not taxonomists, and are not using these names as correctly, we are horticulturalists. For us these differences matter. I want one with the long dangly petals, and I want one with the wide, outstretched mostly flat petals. Our mistake is forgetting that our motive is mainly horticultural. We all need to keep in mind what context we are applying the terms. Let's use the horticultural terms, we can refer to varieties, forms, races or bloodlines and not bog the discussion down with taxonomic language that has very precice meanings and can not go beyond step one if both parties don't agree on the taxonomic first step. 

Taxonomically, I think the philippinense issue is a dead issue. There is one name. Just as in dogs, there is one name, _Canis lupus familiaris_, that is it. Yet we all are very concerned, before we bring one into the house to live with us, just what breed it is. Rottweilers vs Pekinese, greyhound vs pug, it really matters when choosing our companions, but a taxonomist has just the single name, and that is it. So I think we should brush up on the correct hort terms to use and try to stop bending the taxonomic terms into inappropriate non-taxonomic usages. This thought is partly out of the discussion around the "exul" I posted a photo of earlier. Still don't know quite how to treat that one.


----------



## emydura (Dec 29, 2009)

Some good points Leo. It is interesting that while orchid growers continue to debate the taxonomy of phillipinense there has been universal agreement amongst the current taxonomists (Braems, Cribb, Koopowitz etc) for a long time. In order to make informed decisions on taxonomy you need to see plant specimens right across the species range. Koopowitz states that while phillipinense is highly variable, "plants form a continuum making it difficult to separate the forms in a convincing manner". Us growers tend to see forms at the extreme ends of the continuum which look so different that we believe they should be separate species.

You are right though Leo. It is important for us growers to distinguish between the different forms/types so we know what we are buying. But this is a horticultural distinction not a taxonomic one.

David


----------



## Leo Schordje (Dec 29, 2009)

agreed!


----------



## Bobc (Dec 29, 2009)

very nice. congrats.


----------



## McPaph (Jan 3, 2010)

It is very nice. Love the color and the long twisting petals


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 6, 2010)

Fantastic display!


----------



## CodPaph (Jan 7, 2010)

great flowers, very very nice


----------

