# Paph St.Swithin x praestans (7 years)



## Berrak (Feb 23, 2009)

Bought it as a small plant in May 2002. At last first flower:rollhappy:


----------



## mkline3 (Feb 23, 2009)

So dramatic!


----------



## Greenpaph (Feb 23, 2009)

Paph Edna Ratcliffe!

thanks


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 23, 2009)

:clap: WOW! one can certainly see the parents contributions! :clap: Well done! CONGRATS! for the wait! :clap:


----------



## Elena (Feb 23, 2009)

You are a very patient man. Congrats, it looks good!


----------



## Gilda (Feb 23, 2009)

WOW ! Worth the wait !:clap:


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 23, 2009)

Nice not often seen hybrid....how many growths?


----------



## Berrak (Feb 23, 2009)

Thanks

Its only one growth and a new growth comming fast


----------



## nikv (Feb 23, 2009)

Very pretty!


----------



## GuRu (Feb 23, 2009)

Pretty and absolutely worth the long wait ! 
There's something that confuses me - this flower looks like a pure P. rothschildianum to me at least it's influence is very dominant. There's nearly nothing to see of P. philippinense or P. praestans ? 

Best regards from germany, rudolf


----------



## biothanasis (Feb 23, 2009)

Patience is a virtue and it seems you have it!!! I guesss it was worth the wait!!!


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 23, 2009)

That staminode is very strong roth, right Rudolf?


----------



## John M (Feb 23, 2009)

GuRu said:


> There's something that confuses me - this flower looks like a pure P. rothschildianum to me at least it's influence is very dominant. There's nearly nothing to see of P. philippinense or P. praestans ?



That was my thought as well. That staminode is pure roth-looking....and the rest of the flower....well, it looks like roth too. I don't see any praestans or philippinense influence at all. Where's the curly petals? Where's the large praestans staminode? 'Looks like a straight roth to me.


----------



## Wendy (Feb 23, 2009)

I thought pure roth as well but don't have the experience that some of you have and didn't want to post first.


----------



## Berrak (Feb 24, 2009)

I have mailed the pic to the grower I originally bought the plant from.
I found a pic of the hybrid and I agree it does not like my flowers.
On the other hand the flower has started to change form. The petals hang down more today.
I will post a new picture when the flower seems ready and stable.


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 24, 2009)

I felt it was praestans like with the hooded dorsal & the pouch looked praestans like. If the flower isn't fully open, then the dorsal is gonna change.  I got out my paph book & sure enough you guys are right about the stam! This is exactly why we need to support the forum! Where else can you info like this!
Still a nice flower Berrak!


----------



## eOrchids (Feb 24, 2009)

Well worth the wait, I must say!


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 24, 2009)

There is some lovely magenta/majestic purple along the tips of the petals... Is that a roth characteristic..?

Very pretty flower. Nice contrast between the dark and cream striping in the hood, pity there isn't more of the praetans colour.

Thanks for posting


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 24, 2009)

I like it!


----------



## CodPaph (Feb 25, 2009)

very nice


----------



## Berrak (Feb 25, 2009)

Two snapshots taken tonight. Flower is defenitely smaller than rotshildianum
and the stamnoide is different. Dorsal in cm.


----------



## biothanasis (Feb 25, 2009)

Wonderful Berrak!!! The staminode is amazing!!!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 25, 2009)

Cool close-up.


----------



## JeanLux (Feb 26, 2009)

very nice picts and pretty flower, imo!!!! Jean


----------



## Berrak (Feb 26, 2009)

First daylight picture.


----------



## PAPIPAF (Feb 26, 2009)

perfection in fact, that's incredible, respect!


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 26, 2009)

It sure looks like a roth to me. 95% convinced. Any word back from the seller Berrak? Nice PICs BTW


----------



## GuRu (Feb 27, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> It sure looks like a roth to me. 95% convinced. Any word back from the seller Berrak?....



The remaining 5% to full 100 % come from me, Rick
Best regards from Germany, rudolf


----------



## emydura (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm not a 100% convinced that is pure roth. It doesn't look quite right to me. Secondary hybrids show way more variation than primary hybrids. In a secondary hybrid such as this a small number of seedlings will be dominated by one of the grandparents. So this may just be a chance seedling that is dominated by the roth grandparent. Unless you did a genetic analyses I'm not sure you could ever know. I'd probably just except the label unless proven otherwise. But then the guys above know more than me.

David


----------



## Berrak (Feb 27, 2009)

Well friends

1. Soo strange that the flower are smaller than rotschildianum and that the stamnoide look different - check a close-up picture in Cribb, The Genous Paphiopedilum , second edition, page 21.
2. Soo strange that it will flower and growing better when kept att temperatures above 20 deg. 
3. Rotschildianum does not have the yellow tone as my hybrid.
4. The seller says its Edna Ratcliff

Compare with pictures here:

http://www.orchidphotos.org/images/orchids/speciesV2/Paphiopedilum/index0006.html


By the way - the original flask came from Australia.


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 27, 2009)

*"By the way - the original flask came from Australia."* That explain it!oke:


----------



## emydura (Feb 27, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> *"By the way - the original flask came from Australia."* That explain it!oke:



Well you know it's fine then oke:. Unless it came from Ezigro.

David


----------



## Corbin (Feb 27, 2009)

What ever it is it looks great. I like it.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 28, 2009)

Berrak said:


> 1. Soo strange that the flower are smaller than rotschildianum and that the stamnoide look different - check a close-up picture in Cribb, The Genous Paphiopedilum ...


It's just the tip of the staminode that differs slightly from P. rothschildianum. I would say it's within the range of variation.


Berrak said:


> 2. Soo strange that it will flower and growing better when kept at temperatures above 20 deg.


That's no significant property to tell a hybrid from a pure roth. 


Berrak said:


> 3. Rotschildianum does not have the yellow tone as my hybrid.


There is a wide variation within the colouration of roth's blooms. This isn't a significant feature too


Berrak said:


> 4. The seller says its Edna Ratcliff


I'm pretty sure and convinced this isn't this hybrid. 

Best regards from Germany, rudolf


----------



## emydura (Feb 28, 2009)

Rudolf - you didn't address any of my concerns.

I'm not an expert in terms of genetics so I'm happy for you to pull apart anything I say. I'm just repeating what others have told me and what I have read from various sources.

If you cross phillipinense x sanderianum you get the primary hybrid Michael Koopowitz, which is pretty constant in its form. If you cross Michael Koopowitz with Michael Koopowitz you get a secondary hybrid with the same genetic makeup - ie 50% sanderianum and 50% phillipinense). However as it is a secondary hybrid you get throwbacks to the grand parents. So some seedlings will look look like phillipinense, some like sanderianum and a whole lot will look like something in between. There will be huge phenotypic variation not seen in the primary cross. I dare say you would be convinced that some of them could not be Michael Koopowitz but one of the species. 

I was in a local Paph breeders glasshouse a few years back and he showed me a cross he was making between 2 of his St Swithins. Confused I asked why he would bother making such a cross. He told me because it is a secondary hybrid a few will look predominantly like a roth but would hopefully show the vigour of a St Swithin. 

To me this is just the same with the hybrid we are talking about here. As a secondary hybrid this could just be a throwback to the roth grandparent. In fact this is something you would be hoping for when making such a cross. To me the photo that is shown here is totally plausible for this cross. In anycase while I agree it looks to be very roth dominated, there is something about it that doesn't look quite right for the full species.

I'd like to here other peoples opinions on what I have said.

David


----------



## GuRu (Feb 28, 2009)

emydura said:


> ....I'm not an expert in terms of genetics so I'm happy for you to pull apart anything I say. I'm just repeating what others have told me and what I have read from various sources....


David,
I'm no expert in genetics too my knowledge is that of an amateur.


emydura said:


> If you cross phillipinense x sanderianum you get the primary hybrid Michael Koopowitz, which is pretty constant in its form. If you cross Michael Koopowitz with Michael Koopowitz you get a secondary hybrid with the same genetic makeup - ie 50% sanderianum and 50% phillipinense). However as it is a secondary hybrid you get throwbacks to the grand parents. So some seedlings will look look like phillipinense, some like sanderianum and a whole lot will look like something in between. There will be huge phenotypic variation not seen in the primary cross. I dare say you would be convinced that some of them could not be Michael Koopowitz but one of the species....


I'm complete aware of Mendel's laws and I agree to your example regarding Michal Koopowitz.
But in this case we've got a hybrid of three species and this progeny shows significant propertys/features just of one of its suspected parents. It shows no hints for philippinense and praestans it just looks similar to pure roth. 


emydura said:


> ...I was in a local Paph breeders glasshouse a few years back and he showed me a cross he was making between 2 of his St Swithins. Confused I asked why he would bother making such a cross. He told me because it is a secondary hybrid a few will look predominantly like a roth but would hopefully show the vigour of a St Swithin.


I'm not conviced by this breeders intentions and aims. Such plant contribute to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.


emydura said:


> ...To me this is just the same with the hybrid we are talking about here....


That's not my opinion - see above.


emydura said:


> To me the photo that is shown here is totally plausible for this cross. In anycase while I agree it looks to be very roth dominated, there is something about it that doesn't look quite right for the full species.....


Maybe you are right maybe not. In the end you can't find it out just with discussions about the status of this plant. There are possibilities to clear it e.g. cross it with itself and wait for the flowers of it's progenies (takes too long) or to make an DNA analysis (too expensive).
In the end it's Berrak's decition what he writes on the tag.
Best regards from Germany to down under, rudolf


----------



## John M (Feb 28, 2009)

Unfortunately, the Michael Koopowitz analogy does not apply in this case. Michael Koopowitz is a primary hybrid between two valid species. This cross is between a primary hybrid and another species. It is not a selfing (if it was, then the tag should read "[St. Swithin x praestans] x self". Genetically, this plant is 1/4 roth, 1/4 philippinense and 1/2 praestans. There should be A LOT more praestans showing in this flower.....most notably, downward pointing, twisted petals and a larger, wider staminode shield. The yellow-ish background colour is to be expected from a praestans cross; but, there are plenty of pure roths that have a yellow-ish background, as well as plenty with a white background. 

Now that there are more photos to see, I agree that the staminode is a bit off. It's not the exact shape of a pure roth. Plus, the striping in the dorsal sepal looks suspiciously like it has wilhelminiae influence. Of course, wilhelminiae used to be considered a variety of glanduliferum...along with praestans. So, it could be that this plant is a hybrid of St. Swithin and wilhelminiae....or even St. Swithin and William Ambler. William Ambler is roth x wilhelminiae. If this were the case, I'd expect to see a VERY, VERY roth-like flower with just a hint of the other two species....and basically, with this flower, that's what we're seeing. It looks like a roth at first glance; but, there is the issue of the staminode being a bit off and the dorsal sepal having very wilhelminiae-looking influence. In the end, it's unlikely to ever know for sure what it is. It's always easier to say what something IS NOT, rather than what IT IS. IMHO, this IS NOT St. Swithin x praestans. There is too much roth influence and not enough praestans influence. If I had to guess (and please note, this *is* just an educated guess), I'd say that this is St. Swithin x William Ambler.


----------



## GuRu (Mar 1, 2009)

John M said:


> Unfortunately, the Michael Koopowitz analogy does not apply in this case. Michael Koopowitz is a primary hybrid between two valid species. This cross is between a primary hybrid and another species. It is not a selfing (if it was, then the tag should read "[St. Swithin x praestans] x self". Genetically, this plant is 1/4 roth, 1/4 philippinense and 1/2 praestans. There should be A LOT more praestans showing in this flower.....most notably, downward pointing, twisted petals and a larger, wider staminode shield. The yellow-ish background colour is to be expected from a praestans cross; but, there are plenty of pure roths that have a yellow-ish background, as well as plenty with a white background.


I agree that's what i wrote too. 


John M said:


> Now that there are more photos to see, I agree that the staminode is a bit off. It's not the exact shape of a pure roth. Plus, the striping in the dorsal sepal looks suspiciously like it has wilhelminiae influence. Of course, wilhelminiae used to be considered a variety of glanduliferum...along with praestans. So, it could be that this plant is a hybrid of St. Swithin and wilhelminiae....or even St. Swithin and William Ambler. William Ambler is roth x wilhelminiae. If this were the case, I'd expect to see a VERY, VERY roth-like flower with just a hint of the other two species....and basically, with this flower, that's what we're seeing. It looks like a roth at first glance; but, there is the issue of the staminode being a bit off and the dorsal sepal having very wilhelminiae-looking influence. In the end, it's unlikely to ever know for sure what it is. *It's always easier to say what something IS NOT, rather than what IT IS. IMHO, this IS NOT St. Swithin x praestans.* There is too much roth influence and not enough praestans influence. If I had to guess (and please note, this *is* just an educated guess), I'd say that this is *St. Swithin x William Ambler*.


Perhaps this could be the solution and a result I could live with.

Best regards from germany, rudolf


----------



## SlipperKing (Mar 1, 2009)

I have to agree with you two, the most likely ID is *St. Swithin x William Ambler *or a very similar cross. The 5% doubt I had now sides with Rudolf and John M.


----------



## emydura (Mar 1, 2009)

John - you missed my point with the MK example. 

sanderianum x phillipinense = Michael Koopowitz (primary hybrid)

Michael Koopowitz x Michael Koopowitz (secondary hybrid)

Both are made up of 50% sanderianum and 50% phillipinense but give very different results. The primary hybrid just tends to be an intermediate between the two that shows little variation. Whereas the secondary hybrid shows large variation ranging from plants that look a lot like phillipinense through to sanderianum dominated plants and everything in between.

A lot of what you said above is based on the premise that a hybrid will be an intermediate between the two parents and show little variation. That may be fine for primary hybrids but I'm not sure that holds for secondary and complex hybrids. Surely just by pure chance a few of the offspring will be dominated by one side of the cross. I would never have expected that all seedlings would show a phenotype of 25% roths, 25% phillipinense and 50% praestans.

Or are you saying that it is a well known law of genetics that whenever you cross a species to a secondary/complex hybrid, it is a rock solid guarantee that half the phenotype will be dominated by the species.

I'm not saying that it is definately a seedling of St Swithin x praestans. I'm just not prepared to say it is definately not. As we see more and more secondary / complex multi-florals hybrids, odd ball seedlings will be thrown up all the time which we will then automtically question the parentage. Lots of fun ahead. 

Like you I can see praestans/wilhiminiae in the flower. That dorsal is all wrong for a roth. 

David


----------



## emydura (Mar 1, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> I have to agree with you two, the most likely ID is *St. Swithin x William Ambler *or a very similar cross. The 5% doubt I had now sides with Rudolf and John M.



I actually think St Swithin x praestans/wilhiminiae is a similar cross. Same parents just a slight re-arrangement.

David


----------



## SlipperKing (Mar 1, 2009)

emydura said:


> I actually think St Swithin x praestans/wilhiminiae is a similar cross. Same parents just a slight re-arrangement.
> 
> David


2 shots of roth instead of one.


----------



## toddybear (Mar 1, 2009)

well worth the 7 years...I usually toss them after 3 years with no blooms...I need more patience...and space!


----------



## P-chan (Mar 1, 2009)

Fantastic bloom and photo...Really beautiful!


----------

