# Roths



## tim (May 17, 2016)

Two nice ones from OZ with very wide petals:

2.4 cm PW, 28 cm NS







2.3 cm PW, 29 cm NS


----------



## paphioboy (May 17, 2016)

Interesting. Recently saw some photos online of a new hybrid from Taiwan, paph Sunlight Rothschild = Lady Rothschild x roth, which looks very much like this. 
Lady Rothschild = Lady Isabel x roth.
Lady Isabel = roth x stonei.


----------



## Stone (May 18, 2016)

No way that's a roth. Things should be kept properly documented!


----------



## cattmad (May 18, 2016)

Stone said:


> No way that's a roth. Things should be kept properly documented!



Here we go, how many thousand Roths have you flowered to come up with your expert analysis that this is not a roth


----------



## NYEric (May 18, 2016)

Interesting!


----------



## Fabrice (May 18, 2016)

Probably roth. because I suppose OZ work selection is serious.

But I agree we can have doubt when we look at the form of petals.

One thing is sure, in my personal taste, I don't like this selection way!


----------



## Justin (May 18, 2016)

That is silly. Amazing roths...


----------



## emydura (May 18, 2016)

Looks like line bred roths to my eyes.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 18, 2016)

why cant I see the photos?


----------



## paphioland (May 18, 2016)

It is a roth. There is large variation in the petal stance. Size, staminode. Unless this is some crazy complex hybrid with tons of roth in the backround, it is a roth. Looks very much like a roth to me. I can smell it from here.


----------



## paphioland (May 18, 2016)

paphioboy said:


> Interesting. Recently saw some photos online of a new hybrid from Taiwan, paph Sunlight Rothschild = Lady Rothschild x roth, which looks very much like this.
> Lady Rothschild = Lady Isabel x roth.
> Lady Isabel = roth x stonei.



Look at their staminodes and sizes.


----------



## Justin (May 18, 2016)

Yeah the closest this thing ever came to stonei is probably a few benches over...no stonei in the staminode it is clearly all roth


----------



## Mocchaccino (May 18, 2016)

any ideas about the grexes of these two?


----------



## tim (May 18, 2016)

Top one is 'Mighty' x 'Red Baron'; bottom one I'm not sure - didn't get that one.


----------



## Fabrice (May 18, 2016)

As I told too, it's clearly a roth., not because I'm sure when I see this bloom but because all blooms from the breeding line are more and less similar and homogeneous. IF it was hybrid, some plants would have more Lady Isabel in it.

About some Lady roth. or Lady roth. x roth isolated, I challenge anyone to be affirmative it's not a roth.
Some years ago, I saw many plants of Sunlight roth. and 2 or 3 plants were exactly roths and could be sold like roths. 

An example of the difficulties for some particular plants: http://www.orchids.com/Paph-Lady-Rothschild-rothschildianum-Fly-Eagle-AMAOS-x-Lady-Isabel-Norman-HCCAOS-P1279.aspx


----------



## OR.O (May 18, 2016)

I just bought the same cross of the top one  can't wait to see mine in bloom  Very impressive Rothschildianum


----------



## Ozpaph (May 18, 2016)

Im not a great fan of the very wide petals, but thats subjective. An impressive roth.


----------



## Stone (May 18, 2016)

Really? I have just looked at about 100 pictures of roths and I would have thought you could tell a from a mile away that was a hybrid without need for closer examination. Sorry I didn't mean to step on any toes....


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

Staminode is good for identification but in the case of 2nd or 3rd generation of hybrids roths (Lady and Sunlight Roth.), some blooms will have exactly same staminode than roth.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 19, 2016)

i think Oz are likely to have pretty good provenance on their breeding stock


----------



## cattmad (May 19, 2016)

Ozpaph said:


> i think Oz are likely to have pretty good provenance on their breeding stock



Exactly, people looking at photos on the Internet and comparing photos shouldn't be making assertions that something is not true to name. OZ has one of the best names in the business and i don't think they deserve to have that questioned when nothing in the photos shows to be anything but roth

And we wonder why nurseries continue to go out of business


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

Accuse without evidence is not correct of course. 

But I think for the interest of the forum, this is still interesting to discuss. The argument referring to the celebrity of a company is not really recevable.
I could sadly name some famous breeders what were (are) not really honest with label... 

About those 2 flowers, petals form are not representative of the rothschildianum specie as I see it. But the selection to obtain very wide petals is probably the reason of this and no doubt they are roth (ugly for my taste)


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Ozpaph said:


> i think Oz are likely to have pretty good provenance on their breeding stock



They do but mistakes can happen. But this is clearly Roth. There is no reason to think this is a hybrid. These crosses all look similar. Even the individual Roth crosses have distinctive looks. If this were some very complicated Roth hybrid all the progeny would look different. So this is not stepping on toes. You are just wrong. Tell me what features besides pictures you've seen on the internet that make you think that these are not roths?


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Fabrice said:


> Accuse without evidence is not correct of course.
> 
> But I think for the interest of the forum, this is still interesting to discuss. The argument referring to the celebrity of a company is not really recevable.
> I could sadly name some famous breeders what were (are) not really honest with label...
> ...



There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals. Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals. These more common measurements in the newer crosses are not unreasonable at all with selection. It is hard for me to even have this conversation because it is ridiculous.


----------



## Mocchaccino (May 19, 2016)

paphioland said:


> They do but mistakes can happen. But this is clearly Roth. There is no reason to think this is a hybrid. These crosses all look similar. Even the individual Roth crosses have distinctive looks. If this were some very complicated Roth hybrid all the progeny would look different. So this is not stepping on toes. You are just wrong. Tell me what features besides pictures you've seen on the internet that make you think that these are not roths?



I am with you. Back cross would give offsprings at least certain phenotypic variations.


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

paphioland said:


> There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals.



Right, good point for you.



paphioland said:


> Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals.



Right too (just for some exceptional clones) but not this particular shape of petals. 
And I just supposed one thing. To search more and more wide could give this particular petals shape. Because I don't think parentage of this breeding line have this particular petals shape... So?
And I'll say even more I don't think it's a good thing for the next generation. But I'm not breeder...



paphioland said:


> These more common measurements in the newer crosses are not unreasonable at all with selection. It is hard for me to even have this conversation because it is ridiculous.



You like that, not me. I don't see what is ridiculous. Just a matter of taste and probably too a different vision of what may be the selection.


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Fabrice said:


> Right, good point for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No the rediculous part it that we are debating whether these are roths or not. 

My view is that bigger is better as long as it is reasonably proportional to the rest of the flower. If roths had 2.5 cm petals with a 40 cm ns you wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

paphioland said:


> No the rediculous part it that we are debating whether these are roths or not.
> 
> My view is that bigger is better as long as it is reasonably proportional to the rest of the flower. If roths had 2.5 cm petals with a 40 cm ns you wouldn't have a problem with it.



Ok. So, we can tell it's a roth. for sure (I agree) but with an usual petals shape that we like or not. Do you agree with that?


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Fabrice said:


> Ok. So, we can tell it's a roth. for sure (I agree) but with an usual petals shape that we like or not. Do you agree with that?



There are a bunch of things I'm not crazy about on that flower but I'm really picky. The thicker is better than thin. I'd like it better if the petals were longer as well. The dorsal does not look that large either in the pics making the petals seem disproportionally thick. So a bigger dorsal and synsepal would help. I think proportions matter as well as size of the segments. 

Check out my 'drogon' clone that has just as thick petals with 31 ns. If the ns were 38-40 would look even better.


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

You Drogon is nicer than those 2 plants but I have definitely a problem with the very thick base of the petals. I find it brokes the general harmony of the flower.

But I never saw this kind of flowers in reality. Just in pictures what it does a big difference.

edit: I wanted to tell thick, not thin...


----------



## cattmad (May 19, 2016)

People need to understand that there is variations in Roths, between crosses and even within sib crosses. Also clones like drogon are extremely select and are probably one in several hundreds of not thousands and expecting every roth to have the same petal form is unrealistic.


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

paphioland said:


> There is no quick hybridization that could create wider petals. Roths have wider petals than mostly all multi species that could be hybridized to appear like Roth. Roths even in the Rex X mm had 2.4 cm petals and 7 cm dorsals.



I said right. But on the Paphiopedilum in Taiwan book VI, there's a picture of Paphiopedilum Sunlight Rothschild 'Good Libe' 83/SM. 

NS is 28.7, DS is 6.9 and PS is 2.3.

So, you're not completely right.


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Fabrice said:


> I said right. But on the Paphiopedilum in Taiwan book VI, there's a picture of Paphiopedilum Sunlight Rothschild 'Good Libe' 83/SM.
> 
> NS is 28.7 and PS is 2.3.
> 
> So, you're not completely right.



Is that a complex Roth hybrid on both sides? Of course there is a point where you have 87.5% Roth or more it can look like a Roth. There is no way these are hybrids. I've seen many of each cross. There is no improvement in my mind using anything else over Roth alone when you have mostly Roth in background. Is lady Isabel nice yes. But keep crossing to Roth a few generations and I think just using Roth is nicer. There is no point. There hasn't been enough time even at oz generation wise to have some 93 % Roth hybrid. Just silliness.


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

You're talking to me about OZ. The subject is closed since some previous posts and we all agree to say those 2 blooms are roths.

I simply demonstrates that a hybrid with many Roths may look like a roth. with a similar size. And for some of them, it would be easy for a dishonest seller to sell it like roth. to a 'naive' buyer. And of course more expensive! 

Sadly, there are many examples with many species (Phal bellina alba and violacea alba crossed with micholitzii during some generations and sell like specie is the 1st example I think)


----------



## Fabrice (May 19, 2016)

But I agree with you. No interest for a breeder to add other specie in a breeding roth. line currently.


----------



## My Green Pets (May 19, 2016)

1. Grab alcoholic drink of choice.

2. Go to beginning of this thread.

3. Every time you read the word 'roth', take a drink.

4. Post below that you have taken the Roth Challenge and attach a selfie.


----------



## Stone (May 19, 2016)

Hey if you say it's a roth then it's a roth. 
The down swept petal base (curve) is what raised doubts that it is pure in my mind.
I just have never seen it in a roth before but I have in many hybrids.





image upload no limit


----------



## Stone (May 19, 2016)

cattmad said:


> Exactly, people looking at photos on the Internet and comparing photos shouldn't be making assertions that something is not true to name. OZ has one of the best names in the business and i don't think they deserve to have that questioned when nothing in the photos shows to be anything but roth
> 
> And we wonder why nurseries continue to go out of business



This is nonsense. It's no proof whatsoever that just because a nursery has a good reputation that they are beyond question. 
Anything could have happened in the breeding line. Especially if any of the the progenitors of the cross came from Asia!
A non argument.


----------



## paphioland (May 19, 2016)

Stone said:


> Hey if you say it's a roth then it's a roth.
> The down swept petal base (curve) is what raised doubts that it is pure in my mind.
> I just have never seen it in a roth before but I have in many hybrids.
> 
> ...



I agree that it is not the most common stance. And labels can be moved anywhere. Even by customers. That stance does happen in roths though. Look at some of the Rex X mm. They had very downswept petals with shoulders . Like I think Frank smith and even crystelle.


----------



## cattmad (May 20, 2016)

Stone said:


> This is nonsense. It's no proof whatsoever that just because a nursery has a good reputation that they are beyond question.
> Anything could have happened in the breeding line. Especially if any of the the progenitors of the cross came from Asia!
> A non argument.



I'm not saying they are beyond question, im saying that someone who has never even flowered a roth or seen one in flower shouldn't be making statements like "there's no way that's a roth". You made a very direct statement.

Even TON flowers Roths with that petal stance, it is uncommon but not proof this is a hybrid.

Maybe I'm just getting peed off with the Internet taxanomist


----------



## Mocchaccino (May 20, 2016)

Stone said:


> This is nonsense. It's no proof whatsoever that just because a nursery has a good reputation that they are beyond question.
> Anything could have happened in the breeding line. Especially if any of the the progenitors of the cross came from Asia!
> A non argument.



All ancestral paphs were orignated all over the tropical Asia.


----------



## Stone (May 20, 2016)

cattmad said:


> > someone who has never even flowered a roth or seen one in flower
> 
> 
> True I have not flowered one yet but you are making the same mistake you accuse me of by supposing I have never seen one.
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 20, 2016)

Mocchaccino said:


> All ancestral paphs were orignated all over the tropical Asia.



Ha Ha Very funny. I mean out of Asian Nurseries...


----------

