# Paph. Paeony



## Gcroz (Feb 27, 2011)

This is a Paph. Paeony, or so the tag says, I purchased back in 1997. It has been divided several times. Currently, one flower open with 2 more on the way.

Another reliable bloomer.


----------



## Dido (Feb 27, 2011)

nicew light color


----------



## Shiva (Feb 27, 2011)

I like it!


----------



## paphreek (Feb 27, 2011)

Does the tag have a clonal name?


----------



## etex (Feb 27, 2011)

Super colors and bloom!


----------



## Gcroz (Feb 27, 2011)

paphreek said:


> Does the tag have a clonal name?



No it doesn't.


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 27, 2011)

Color looks very pretty.


----------



## Roy (Feb 27, 2011)

Most likely a Paeony hybrid cross.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 28, 2011)

Roy said:


> Most likely a Paeony hybrid cross.



Or maybe a sibling of Paph. Paeony 'Regency'? Given the awesome variation in a complex cross there is no reason to believe this isn't a Paeony clone.


----------



## Roy (Feb 28, 2011)

To be a sibling of Paeony it would be near a miracle. That cross was done decades ago & only from memory, only one plant came out that was worth growing. I know of 3 P.Paeony and 2 aren't close to being good.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 28, 2011)

If Orchid Societies in New Hampshire are much like they are here in South Africa (average age 60-70 years old) then all manner of ancient cross may hide in people's collections until they are too old to tend them. One of those mongrels (lets be honest, Regency looks a lot better than this one) may have survived unknown to the rest of the orchid world.

Gcroz, where did you get your plant? Orchid society sales table?

My philosophy on these questionable tag matters is that, since proving an negative (i.e. this isn't within the variation of that very variable cross or species) is impossible, there is no point in casting doubt on what the tag actually says. And, if what Paul says is true, we can't really trust any of the labels from that era.


----------



## Gcroz (Feb 28, 2011)

I purchased the plant from a grower in CT. that had been growing since the late '70s. I have to say, I'm not sure about the tag, but don't care either way. Ultimately the tag will stay with it, since it is the only documentation I have left from the time I purchased it. 

In theory, and I have no proof of this, it could even be a remake of the cross. Who knows. But an interesting mystery...


----------



## paphreek (Feb 28, 2011)

Roy said:


> To be a sibling of Paeony it would be near a miracle. That cross was done decades ago & only from memory, only one plant came out that was worth growing. I know of 3 P.Paeony and 2 aren't close to being good.



I have another Paeony. It is Paph Paeony 'Rufus'. I believe the division came from Tonkins.


----------



## Gcroz (Feb 28, 2011)

Paphreek: The color of mine is very similar, except for 3 things.

1. Less pink on the dorsal.
2. Petals and pouch are not as rich in color
3. My photo was taken with a cell phone using light from a window.

Doesn't solve the mystery, but looks a lot more like my flower.


----------



## jimspaphs (Feb 28, 2011)

*Paeony`Clover`*



Roy said:


> To be a sibling of Paeony it would be near a miracle. That cross was done decades ago & only from memory, only one plant came out that was worth growing. I know of 3 P.Paeony and 2 aren't close to being good.



Not a good flowering but on its day `Clover` is worth its bench space.--Have some seedlings on the way with it.


----------



## paphreek (Feb 28, 2011)

Gcroz said:


> Paphreek: The color of mine is very similar, except for 3 things.
> 
> 1. Less pink on the dorsal.
> 2. Petals and pouch are not as rich in color
> ...



I agree. It is possible that there are more Paeony clones floating around. Two others, 'Althea' HCC/AOS and 'Val' AM/AOS, were shown and awarded by the Tonkins in the 1980's. Maybe someone else has more information.


----------



## tim (Feb 28, 2011)

Ratcliffe's made at least one Paeony sib in 1965 or so - 'Rufus' x 'Regency' looking for better stems. (That same f2 population was made by the Tonkins in the mid 1970s- 'Althea' is dead, and I have a small piece of 'Val'.) The clones 'Mulberry', 'Clover', 'Debonaire' and perhaps some others were selected by Ratcliffes, but undoubtedly there were many others. With the numbers of plants Ratcliffe's was sending to the US in and around that time, I think it's pretty safe to say your plant is a Paeony, and probably one resulting from that sibling strain. Nice petals on it too!!


----------



## Marc (Feb 28, 2011)

tim said:


> Ratcliffe's made at least one Paeony sib in 1965 or so - 'Rufus' x 'Regency' looking for better stems. (That same f2 population was made by the Tonkins in the mid 1970s- 'Althea' is dead, and I have a small piece of 'Val'.) The clones 'Mulberry', 'Clover', 'Debonaire' and perhaps some others were selected by Ratcliffes, but undoubtedly there were many others. With the numbers of plants Ratcliffe's was sending to the US in and around that time, I think it's pretty safe to say your plant is a Paeony, and probably one resulting from that sibling strain. Nice petals on it too!!



Nice to see that there are people on this forum with so much knowledge. :clap:


----------



## paphreek (Feb 28, 2011)

What took 'ya so long, Tim?oke:


----------



## W. Beetus (Feb 28, 2011)

Beautiful red! Nice plant.


----------



## Roy (Feb 28, 2011)

jimspaphs said:


> Not a good flowering but on its day `Clover` is worth its bench space.--Have some seedlings on the way with it.



Clover is the one I couldn't think of Jim, thanks.

Mulberry & Debonaire I suppose are ok but not against the other 2, IMO.

P. Paeony 'Regency'


----------



## tim (Mar 1, 2011)

some Paeony clones are here; the ones with the little ruler under them are Ratcliffe slides which have been scanned; not sure about the rest.

Interestingly enough Paeony 'Debonaire' got an AM/RHS in 1970, and what a year that must have been - Honey Plume 'Halo', Betty Bracey 'Springtime', Chianti 'Chilton', Startler 'Glace' and Darling 'Chateauneuf' were all awarded in the same year, in what must rank among the best paph seasons in the history of the RHS, at least where future breeding (or novelty, in the case of the Darling) is concerned. To have been a fly on the wall when Honey Plume 'Halo' was selected as the Moore Medal Winner...what a debate that must have been.

I can remember reading somewhere that Paul Phillips was most excited about this new group of Paeony because of the improvement in stem length. I think that's weird given that 'Regency' does not too often contribute its poor stem to its progeny - look at this absolute beauty here...love it!!


----------

