# wenshanense



## Stone (Jan 6, 2013)

What is the status of wenshanense? Is it still considered a natural hybrid(conco bellatulum)? or a species in its own right. If its a nat hybrid, souldn't it be x wenshanense? If its a species, what was the determining factor? Does concolor and bellatulum hybridize in the wild? If so whats that called and whats the difference from wenshanense?
Thanks 
Mike


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 6, 2013)

I was told by someone whom I think of as an 'expert', that - if its a natural hybrid found in the wild (collected) its called conco-bellatulum. If a human makes the cross its called wenhanense. That's what I was told. The genetic mix should be the same. No idea of the history behind this oddity. Hopefully someone knows.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 6, 2013)

Found this - 
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/tro-100351649
http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-147326


----------



## Roy (Jan 6, 2013)

From a recognised source, P. wenshanense is actually a Natural Hybrid, the man made version is P. Conco-Bellatulum.
The man made form flower are different in many ways on some but very similar in others. The Japanese decided to do the naming I believe, had it described & named.


----------



## Stone (Jan 6, 2013)

Ok so, so far as clear as mud......What do you do with plants from Thailand labeled wenshanense? How are you supposed to determine if they are crosses made with natural plants or man-made? Or does it matter? I guess it probably does because the man made crosses could have infusions of anything?? I have 3 clones and all look completly different from each other leaf wize.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jan 6, 2013)

For simplicity's sake, let's refer to both wild and man-made plants as "conco-bellatulum". The plants would not be equivalent. A man-made conco-bellatulum would be basically 50-50 concolor and bellatulum, genetically. But a natural hybrid population would have a range of genes...some would be close to 50-50, but others would be predominantly 1 species or the other, depending on how the parents bred over previous generations. Not just the sorting of the genes, but some might be conco-bellatulum x bellatulum, some might be c-b x concolor, and so on. I've seen some "natural" c-b's that were intermediate between the parent species, some that favored concolor, and I had one many years ago that basically looked like an enormous bellatulum.


----------



## Roy (Jan 6, 2013)

Stone, all you can do is believe the label. Its quite possible the Thai plants are selfings or out crosses. Looking at the variation they could be Conco-Bellatulum. Crosses made in the nursery to fill the market need. I don't think we'll ever know unless someone spills the beans.


----------



## Roy (Jan 6, 2013)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> For simplicity's sake, let's refer to both wild and man-made plants as "conco-bellatulum". The plants would not be equivalent. A man-made conco-bellatulum would be basically 50-50 concolor and bellatulum, genetically. But a natural hybrid population would have a range of genes...some would be close to 50-50, but others would be predominantly 1 species or the other, depending on how the parents bred over previous generations. Not just the sorting of the genes, but some might be conco-bellatulum x bellatulum, some might be c-b x concolor, and so on. I've seen some "natural" c-b's that were intermediate between the parent species, some that favored concolor, and I had one many years ago that basically looked like an enormous bellatulum.



Spot on Eric. The discussion is & will be never ending.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 6, 2013)

Oops, I got it the wrong way round.
Eric, if wenshanense has been validly described as a species there must be a colony with similar plants of similar 'mixed' genetics ie stable proportion of the 'alleged' two species. They should look the same, shouldn't they? They should have bred into a stable genetic mix and not have much variation?
or is there some doubt about the validity of the species?


----------



## Roy (Jan 6, 2013)

Not necessarily, if you self any primary hybrid, man made or natural, genetics will vary. You can make the exact cross 100 times & not flower any 2 plants the same. Not a botanist or Dr. etc but I believe no genetic sequence is stable.


----------



## Hugorchids (Jan 6, 2013)

I think it should depend on how you grow the plant to distinguish the plants. true wenshanense can take the cold pretty well, mines actually thrive in cooler temperatures (around 40 degrees) setting buds in winter. I doubt a man-made hybrid, conco-bellatulum will take the cold, if I get one I'll try it out.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 7, 2013)

Roy said:


> Not necessarily, if you self any primary hybrid, man made or natural, genetics will vary. You can make the exact cross 100 times & not flower any 2 plants the same. Not a botanist or Dr. etc but I believe no genetic sequence is stable.



I understand if a cross is made there is genetic and phenotypic variability but wenshanense is a described species so there must be a (large) colony of very similar looking plants. If one one plant in the colony was different it wouldn't be a new species, just a hybrid. I wonder if there is a 'story' about the discovery or wenshanense?


----------



## Roy (Jan 8, 2013)

As I understand it, one plant is checked, tested etc & used to describe a species. Variations within a colony are accepted as part of that description. It would be impossible to check every plant. Look at the variation in P. concolor, bellatulum, niveum, godefroye.
Dr. Guido Braem has an interesting story to tell about P. wenshanense / conco-bellatulum Nat Hyb. If I can find it I'll post it.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 9, 2013)

that would be a good read.
If a new species can be described on just one plant then taxonomy is closer to witch craft that I thought!


----------



## quietaustralian (Jan 9, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> that would be a good read.
> If a new species can be described on just one plant then taxonomy is closer to witch craft that I thought!



Many of the Paph species were described based on only one plant and without accurate knowledge of where that one plant was found.


----------

