# Phrag. fischeri



## tomkalina (Oct 22, 2012)

One of the first Phrag fischeri's in our collection, this one was purchased from Dr. Glen Lehr when he had a company called Ecua-Orchideas. Now, I think he is specializing in Japanese Neofinetias.


----------



## Hera (Oct 22, 2012)

The color is awesome. Thanks.


----------



## Shiva (Oct 22, 2012)

Nice! I'd love to get one of those.


----------



## nikv (Oct 22, 2012)

Beautiful! Are all of the fischeri in cultivation from selfings of a single plant or has more than one plant been introduced into cultivation?


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 22, 2012)

That is a sweet one!


----------



## Rick (Oct 22, 2012)

Pretty cute.

What's the leaf span of this plant Tom?


----------



## likespaphs (Oct 22, 2012)

wowOwowOwow!


----------



## NYEric (Oct 22, 2012)

Good shape and pouch. has this x Pk bloomed yet?


----------



## Kyle (Oct 22, 2012)

nikv said:


> Beautiful! Are all of the fischeri in cultivation from selfings of a single plant or has more than one plant been introduced into cultivation?



There are a few wild plants in cultivation. Not a single source of genes.


----------



## SlipperKing (Oct 23, 2012)

Great color Tom.


----------



## JeanLux (Oct 23, 2012)

A Beauty!!!! Jean


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Oct 23, 2012)

Very nice!


----------



## NYEric (Oct 23, 2012)

Need a good one for my collection!!


----------



## tomkalina (Oct 23, 2012)

We should have fischeri seedlings again in the spring.


----------



## Erythrone (Oct 23, 2012)

Cute!!!


----------



## John M (Oct 23, 2012)

Kyle said:


> There are a few wild plants in cultivation. Not a single source of genes.



So, they've been found growing in the wild? Is this conclusively confirmed? Is there habitat information and in-situ photos available to see, somewhere on the Internet?


----------



## Kyle (Oct 23, 2012)

John M said:


> So, they've been found growing in the wild? Is this conclusively confirmed? Is there habitat information and in-situ photos available to see, somewhere on the Internet?



I've posted pictures in the past. It grows on the Colombian/ecuadorian border.

Kyle


----------



## John M (Oct 24, 2012)

Kyle, I've searched all open forums at ST for posts by you about fischeri and found none with photos and no further information related specifically to my questions. Can you please tell me where I can find this info? Thanks.

p.s. PhragWeb has no habitat information, in situ photos, or confirmation that it has ever been found in the wild.

EDIT: Doing a general search of the web using Google, I found myself back here at ST reading a thread started in 2006 in which you incorrectly spell fischeri (dropped the "c" and added an "i"). That's the thread with the in-situ photo you say was taken by Alex Portillia. 
http://http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g216/barjon1/Phrag.jpg

Still, I'd like to see more in-situ photos. Do they exist anywhere? Alex Portillia's photo is very limited, basically only showing the plant in bloom and none of the surrounding area. Also, it's just one photo which is so limited, it could easily have been staged. For me, that one photo does not prove that fischeri has been discovered in the wild. If it is known to exist in the wild....and more clones have been collected, where are the photos? Where is the habitat information? Also, can anyone explain how a new species of Phrag can be found amongst a group of "artificailly" propagated schlimii's?


----------



## Dido (Oct 24, 2012)

Kyle one other thing. 

Just seen that one seller on eBay is using your Avater picture to sell Kovachii in Uk. I find this strange. 
Please have a look....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Slipper-O...arden_PlantsSeedsBulbs_JN&hash=item2323d08bb8


----------



## Kyle (Oct 24, 2012)

Thank you Dido, I will look into it.

Sorry for misspelling a word. I'm glad you were able to figure out what I was talking about.

That is the only picture I have. Forum member Frankc is the only person I know who as been to the site, he may have pictures. It is a very difficult site to access , more difficult than kovachii, I've been told.

How the plant got mixed with other plants, I don't know. Ecuagenera was very unorganized beck then. It is a bit better now, but if anyone who has purchased plants from them knows plants are from time to time labled wrong. Every pot doesn't have a label. They screwed up.

Not to be confrontational, but what's your angle? What are you getting at? 

Kyle


----------



## John M (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks Kyle. I don't have any angle and don't mean to come off as confrontational. I just find it very frustrating that there isn't more information and photos available. There is a real mystery surrounding this species; almost as if there is some sort of conspiracy going on.....which is crazy of course. However, the discovery of the type specimen was suspect at first ..... at least until it was proven to breed true. Then, the lack of information following has fed the whole mystery. I'm just curious; as I am sure are many other people.


I love to see photos of orchids in-situ. I remember when besseae was new and photos of blooming plants in-situ began to show up in the literature. I drooled over those photos many times. The same can be said for kovachii. I've just found it very frustrating that fischeri has been around for a long time now and the information is sketchy at best. It does breed true, so obviously it is a true species; but, the lack of information and photos in-situ is very perplexing.....and frustrating for an enthusiast like me. I guess my frustration came through in my post above. Sorry if it seemed like I was challenging you. Up until now, I hadn't heard that fischeri had been found in the wild and I thought that all Phrag. fischeri in cultivation are decendents of that one plant found amongst the shipment of schlimiis. So, when you posted your comment about posting photos and where it grows in the wild, that REALLY caught my attention. I wanted to know how you knew this. Had you been to the site? If not, was your information from a credible source? Were the photos that you posted of in-situ plants? Can you post a link to the photos that you posted? Etc.

About Ecuagenera. Even if they were disorganized back when fischeri was brand new to science. For one plant to show up in a bunch of schlimiis, someone MUST have gone to the fischeri site in the wild and collected that plant. If the site is so terribly remote and difficult to get to, why would they collect just one plant? It seems more reasonable that they would've collected many plants. Where are they now? Who collected them? Etc., etc., etc. There are still a lot of questions that can be asked. The provinence of fischeri is still rather clouded in mystery.

Kyle, I supposed in a nutshell, my point is this: Your comment ("I've posted pictures in the past. It grows on the Colombian/ecuadorian border."), was very "matter of fact". Yet, to me, this was ground breaking news, not long established fact. I hadn't heard this before. So, this is exciting news to me. Now I'm filled with questions and renewed curiosity to know "what's the deal" with Phrag. fischeri?....what is it's full story?


----------



## nikv (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm curious too, which is why I posed the question in the first place. It's nice to know that there's a bit more genetic diversity in this species than just one plant. Sorta reminds me of Paph. delenatii before its rediscovery.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 24, 2012)

John M said:


> About Ecuagenera. Even if they were disorganized back when fischeri was brand new to science. For one plant to show up in a bunch of schlimiis, someone MUST have gone to the fischeri site in the wild and collected that plant. If the site is so terribly remote and difficult to get to, why would they collect just one plant? It seems more reasonable that they would've collected many plants. Where are they now? Who collected them? Etc., etc., etc. There are still a lot of questions that can be asked. The provinence of fischeri is still rather clouded in mystery.



Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location.


----------



## Kyle (Oct 24, 2012)

Lance pretty much has it. Except, ecuagenera does know where the plants are. They have brought people to the site before. I think Tom was supposed to go a few years back, but never ended up going.

I don't know what happened when the plant was discovered, but for the trained eye, fischerii sticks out like a soar thumb in a pile or bench of schlimii.

Frankc is the only reason I know who has been to the site. Ecuagenera has taken people there, but they don't like to. It is very difficult to get to and is in a politically sensitive area.

I'm happy to answer any question.

On a related note, I have never seen schlimii insitu or heard of anyone seeing them in the wild.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 24, 2012)

Kyle said:


> g.
> 
> Frankc is the only reason I know who has been to the site. Ecuagenera has taken people there, but they don't like to. It is very difficult to get to and is in a politically sensitive area.



Politically sensitive for what reason? Indigenous peoples land or narco?
What part of Ecuador are they found? In Shuar territory?



> On a related note, I have never seen schlimii insitu or heard of anyone seeing them in the wild.



Interesting. fischeri was collected mixed in a batch of schlimi and the fischeri location is known but the schlimi location is not? Is that correct?


----------



## Kyle (Oct 24, 2012)

Political and narcotics. Frank would know more, but I know the jungles along the border region with Columbia wasn't a pace ecuagenera liked bringing tourists or liked traveling themselves.

I don't know if it was collected at the same time, or we're just placed side by side in a greenhouse. I suspect ecuagenera knew what they had, but it got sent to a show by accident by an employee who didn't know better.

I'm sure the location of schlimii is known, but I've never heard of anyone going there. If John thinks the mystery around fischerii is wierd, I think it weirder surrounding schlimii which has been known to science for 100+ years.

Kyle


----------



## John M (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks for the replies Kyle and Lance. It seems that there is still a lot of unknown "facts" and the mystery continues.........



gonewild said:


> Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location.



Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. 'Not trying to be difficult; but your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay. Without lots of photos of the habitat showing blooming plants and information directly from someone who has been to the habitat, it's still all hearsay. Nothing is proven yet.

Interesting fact about schlimii, Kyle. I hadn't realized that nobody knows where schlimii grows in nature. That certainly is odd, considering how long it's been in cultivation!


----------



## Kyle (Oct 24, 2012)

It isn't hearsay. If you want to go to the site, I can arrange it. It exists. I can probably get the GPS coordinates, but those would be much use. But I have seen very few photos, not many.

I'm sure people in Columbia know exactly where schlimii can be found. I find it curious that no one visits those sites. Again, if you really want to go there, I bet it can be done for the right price.

Kyle


----------



## gonewild (Oct 24, 2012)

John M said:


> 'Not trying to be difficult; but your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing.



No logic or leaps of faith involved at all. I have lived and worked ("collected") in South America for a lot of time and I know how the "culture" functions. I don't have any faith in anything I am told from anyone down there and logic does not apply either. On top of that since photoshop found it's way into that environment I don't trust simple photos either. Before I would believe the photo you linked to showing fischeri in situ I would need to see more pictures because to me that image with the flower looks suspicious and as you say proves nothing.



> I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay. Without lots of photos of the habitat showing blooming plants and information directly from someone who has been to the habitat, it's still all hearsay. Nothing is proven yet.



I absolutely agree. I have never thought a biologist or taxonomist should be able to describe a species unless they have either collected the specimen themselves or collaborated with the collector. Without positive knowledge of the location no species should be accepted as valid. And more than one specimen should be required.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 24, 2012)

Kyle said:


> Again, if you really want to go there, I bet it can be done for the right price.
> 
> Kyle



And what is the going rate for ransom payments this month?


----------



## Rick (Oct 24, 2012)

Does anyone have any better info for Phrag andreettae or manzurii?

David Manzur certainly has info on manzurii (he thought it was a weird schlimii when he collected it) and has been collecting Phrags from around Columbia to grow at his own place.

Andreettae is purported to come from the same area as fisherii (I think that's your inormation Kyle).

I could be just one big species/hybrid swarm mess of schlimii - fisherii going on at the Columbia/Ecudor boarder. Maybe just clinal variation, like the mess of Paph. praestens - wilhelminea

Every new patch of plants could end up being a different species.:sob:


----------



## NYEric (Oct 24, 2012)

I've heard you can get andreetae cheap in Ecua. I would not mess around the the Narcos and Politico-fighters in the area of the Columbian/Ecuadorian border!


----------



## tomkalina (Oct 24, 2012)

I was planninga trip to Phrag. fischeri habitat a couple of years ago but ended up in the hospital with a kidney stone four days before the trip was scheduled! Anyone who has ever endured one of these can agree that I would rather have been in Ecuador! 

As Kyle said, the only person I've heard of that's actually visited the Phrag. fischeri habitat recently was Frank Cervera, supposedly for the purpose of shooting a marketing video for Ecuagenera. Pepe Portilla was supposed to have accompanied him. Beyond that, I don't know of anyone who has visited the habitat because of the politically sensitive nature of the area.

The whole question of the schlimii/andreetae/fischeri/manzuri swarm found in northern Ecuador/southern Columbia would make an interesting thesis for an aspiring PhD botany candidate......


----------



## Rick (Oct 24, 2012)

tomkalina said:


> The whole question of the schlimii/andreetae/fischeri/manzuri swarm found in northern Ecuador/southern Columbia would make an interesting thesis for an aspiring PhD botany candidate......



Somebody may be already doing that. I guess they need to go to David Manzur's farm!


http://www.lankesteriana.ucr.ac.cr/..._/Numero por secciones/04 Higgins&Viveros.pdf

I also went through the kidney stone ordeal Tom. I'd think I'd give remote Ecuador a try instead of doing that again too:sob:


----------



## Kyle (Oct 24, 2012)

gonewild said:


> And what is the going rate for ransom payments this month?



I've heard things have really calmed down in Columbia. For me, the barrier is that guides in Columbia think anyone from north America is rich, and thus, they charge high rates. It is much more affordable to go to Peru and Ecuador to see insitu orchids.

Andrettea was quite common in Ecuador when I was there a year ago.

I have not doubt that fischerii, andrettea and schlimii are un related species and are not part of any kind of hybrid swarm. Manzurii on the other hand, is very closely related to schlimii. If I knew more about the geography I would use subspecies.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 24, 2012)

I have a friend that recently tried to collect fish in Columbia. It is safe in towns but the remote areas are very unsafe for gringos. The problem is at any moment you may cross paths with the wrong group of people.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## ORG (Oct 25, 2012)

Really a curious discussion.
On one side a person who has the knowledge about Phrag. fischeri and who has visited the habitat. On the other side persons without any confidence in the informations from Kyle.
When you don't trust Kyle why you would like to discuss with him.
For me it is easier. I know Kyle a longer time and trust him. On the other side I had the possibility to visit the habitat of Phrag. fischeri and to find also a plant in flower and some without. We had only a short time to seek along the river directly on the border to Colombia. And we did not collect any plant, we made only pictures for a coming publication.
But I have seen also old pictures from Colombia around 35 years ago with Phrag. fischeri in the wild, determined as Phrag. schlimii.
About Phrag. andreettae. I get from a friend pictures from the habitat of this nice species from Colombia. It is not so easy to get the pictures and the informations. You must have time and the other persons must trust you, then you have sometimes the possibility to get also the pictures of the habitat.

Phragmipedium andreettae flowered in Europe also from seedlings which came in flasks to Europe some years ago. This species shall grow not so far away from some habitats of fischeri in Colombia. So perhaps also a natural hybrid exists.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## gonewild (Oct 25, 2012)

ORG said:


> When you don't trust Kyle why you would like to discuss with him.
> 
> Olaf



Just to make it clear I trust information from Kyle and never said otherwise. What I said was that I did not trust the information that is linked to from this thread (a single photo) and a species description based on one specimen from an unknown location. I don't think Kyle represented anything here as fact but rather the best info that he had been told.

It's only a discussion that perhaps the photos and info you have will provide answers for, once you publish them


----------



## John M (Oct 25, 2012)

I have no reason to distrust Kyle either. However, there *is* a difference between repeating information you've been told by others and gathering that information yourself. If Kyle had been to the fischeri habitat himself and recorded habitat information and taken photos, I'd believe his every word. But, I reserve the right for healthy scepticism when the information is from someone else which has been passed along by word of mouth and then: it's presented as fact without being backed up by published photos and habitat documentation.

BTW, Olaf: Nobody here in this discussion has been to the fischeri habitat. You have misunderstood the thread.



gonewild said:


> I don't think Kyle represented anything here as fact but rather the best info that he had been told.


 Exactly....and that's hearsay....a.k.a. rumour. Check the dictionary. I wanted to know if *proof* exists, not just information being passed from person to person.


----------



## John M (Oct 25, 2012)

gonewild said:


> _Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location. _





gonewild said:


> No logic or leaps of faith involved at all. I have lived and worked ("collected") in South America for a lot of time and I know how the "culture" functions. I don't have any faith in anything I am told from anyone down there and logic does not apply either. On top of that since photoshop found it's way into that environment I don't trust simple photos either. Before I would believe the photo you linked to showing fischeri in situ I would need to see more pictures because to me that image with the flower looks suspicious and as you say proves nothing.



Lance: Because of the way you have written it, the top paragraph is conjecture on your part, not fact. The "logic" and "faith" that I refer to is in your argument, not the word of the people you've met in S.A. Using words and phrases like "probably" and "most likely", indicate that you are making educated guesses about what happened with fischeri. You seem to feel justified in doing this because you have experience and knowledge about "....how the culture functions" in South America. I tend to agree with your opinion and think you are pretty close, if not right on the mark (because what you say is logical); but, it's still not fact, just because you say it....it is your opinion.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 26, 2012)

John M said:


> Lance: Because of the way you have written it, the top paragraph is conjecture on your part, not fact. The "logic" and "faith" that I refer to is in your argument, not the word of the people you've met in S.A. Using words and phrases like "probably" and "most likely", indicate that you are making educated guesses about what happened with fischeri. You seem to feel justified in doing this because you have experience and knowledge about "....how the culture functions" in South America. I tend to agree with your opinion and think you are pretty close, if not right on the mark (because what you say is logical); but, it's still not fact, just because you say it....it is your opinion.



Correct what I said about the species is not fact. That is why I carefully used words like "probably".


----------



## John M (Oct 26, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Correct what I said about the species is not fact. That is why I carefully used words like "probably".


 Bullshit. You argued your point and defended it when I said: _"Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. ......your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay."_


----------



## gonewild (Oct 26, 2012)

John M said:


> Bullshit. You argued your point and defended it when I said: _"Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. ......your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay."_





> [Bullshit.



No, I never use it. Too high in ammonia. I suggest you try a little K-lite.



> You argued your point and defended it



I was not defending my point, I was defining it.
I was not arguing my point at all. If I wanted to argue the point you refer to I would have asked you... what makes you capable or qualified to make a similar guess? 

But I did not ask that because I was not arguing and I don't even have a point I need to make.


----------



## Rick (Oct 26, 2012)

gonewild said:


> No, I never use it. Too high in ammonia. I suggest you try a little K-lite.



Speaking of K lite (and fisheri).

My first fisherii came from Orchid Babies (I think originally came from OL anyway) several years ago. Back in my RO/MSU days. They were slow growing. I did get 1 to bloom (1st bloom distorted), and now and then they produced a new growth, but ultimately they burnt out after a few years. I also played games with bone meal and oyster shell with these since they are purportedly from a higher pH/calcareous site.

But last year I got two new seedlings from Jerry Fisher. Under K lite they are growing fantastically. No second growths yet, but I can tell roots are doing very well. I moved the smaller/paler one into a basket mount a month ago, and it has caught up to the bigger one, and is almost indistiguishable by leaf color. The bigger one (still in its origininal bark mix) looks like its thinking about spiking.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 26, 2012)

Rick said:


> Speaking of K lite (and fisheri).
> 
> My first fisherii came from Orchid Babies (I think originally came from OL anyway) several years ago. Back in my RO/MSU days. They were slow growing. I did get 1 to bloom (1st bloom distorted), and now and then they produced a new growth, but ultimately they burnt out after a few years. I also played games with bone meal and oyster shell with these since they are purportedly from a higher pH/calcareous site.
> 
> But last year I got two new seedlings from Jerry Fisher. Under K lite they are growing fantastically. No second growths yet, but I can tell roots are doing very well. I moved the smaller/paler one into a basket mount a month ago, and it has caught up to the bigger one, and is almost indistiguishable by leaf color. The bigger one (still in its origininal bark mix) looks like its thinking about spiking.



I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?


----------



## John M (Oct 26, 2012)

gonewild said:


> I was not defending my point, I was defining it.
> I was not arguing my point at all. If I wanted to argue the point you refer to I would have asked you... what makes you capable or qualified to make a similar guess?



I am not qualified to make any guesses. I never made any guesses. That's why I posted my questions! You're not following the context of this discussion...which makes it impossible for this discussion to be informative or useful to anyone. I'd forgotten what it was like to discuss anything with you. This is not about your ego, or you winning; it's about the facts surrounding the provenance of fischeri. If you can't contribute without twisting the content to make yourself look like you've winning an argument, then there's no point in discussing anything with you. I'm done.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 26, 2012)

That was easy.


----------



## Rick (Oct 26, 2012)

gonewild said:


> I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?



I guess we'll need to check with OL on the parentage history.

What in the photo (other than it is not in a cultivated field) suggests a low nutrient system?

The substrate is so covered with moss and ferns, I can't tell if its rock or soil under the moss. Unless you assume or know that moss and ferns are inherently low nutirient plants. But that's probably good for about 90% of orchids anyway.

The incline is steep (good drainage regardless), but can't tell how much water is oozing down, and given we can't see for more than a few feet around the plant, we can't tell what any water is passing through on the way down (like a manure pile?).


Odds are good it's comparable to kovachii habitat which also is doing good for me on K lite in a basket (EC kept below 300 useimens/cm).


----------



## gonewild (Oct 26, 2012)

Rick said:


> What in the photo (other than it is not in a cultivated field) suggests a low nutrient system?
> 
> The substrate is so covered with moss and ferns, I can't tell if its rock or soil under the moss. Unless you assume or know that moss and ferns are inherently low nutirient plants. But that's probably good for about 90% of orchids anyway.
> 
> ...



I don't see many ferns or deep lush moss. What I see is a steep bank either hard clay or rock covered with very short moss. The short moss indicates low fertility and somewhat dry conditions. There is no grass or other large plants growing close to the phrag. If you look at the fern on the right side of the picture the fronds are covered with mud that matched the mud over the moss and on the phrag leaves. This all looks like a "flash flood" coming down the bank. Since there are the mud deposits this is an indication the formation is mud rather than rock and moss. There is another phrag growing to the left just out of the picture so perhaps the colony is excluded from the picture and is in a completely different setting, who knows for sure. Guess after Olaf tells us we will know the answer.


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 26, 2012)

gonewild said:


> I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?



All our Phrag fischeri's originate from the first described Phrag. fischeri, called Phrag. fischeri 'Jerry's Dream'. All Phrag. fischeri's self-pollinate, so the first generation seedlings were selfings of Phrag. fischeri 'Jerry's Dream', later generations were sib crosses and selfings of first generation seedlings or second generation seedlings. I do think that each generation the plants were getting stronger and more vigorous, as each time we would use a plant as a parent we would select the strongest and most vigorous grower. Below is a picture of one our our latest selections. This plant is a probable spontaneous tetraploid, as the flowers are about twice as big as a regular fischeri, and the petals feel much thicker (I still have to confirm it by counting the chromosomes) Also interestingly the ovary gets about twice as long, and it does NOT self-pollinate!







Robert


----------



## nikv (Oct 26, 2012)

^ ^

What a gorgeous flower, Robert! Thanks for sharing it with us!


----------



## Rick (Oct 27, 2012)

gonewild said:


> If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?








Here are my two fischeri. They are both about 6.5" span now, but a few months ago the one in the basket was considerably smaller and paler. I bought them from OL I think August or September of last year. Lycaste53 (Gina) also picked up a couple from the same batch.

If you look hard, you can see a root coming out of the pot. Moss growth has accelerated quite a bit since I started watering for EC management. (I guess that means nutrient reduction).


----------



## NYEric (Oct 28, 2012)

gonewild said:


> That was easy.



_Touche!_- :rollhappy:


----------



## FrankRC (Jan 17, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> As Kyle said, the only person I've heard of that's actually visited the Phrag. fischeri habitat recently was Frank Cervera, supposedly for the purpose of shooting a marketing video for Ecuagenera. Pepe Portilla was supposed to have accompanied him. Beyond that, I don't know of anyone who has visited the habitat because of the politically sensitive nature of the area.
> 
> The habitat of phrag fischeri and phrag andrettate are in areas that, currently, are too dangerous to visit without local guides and help and entails several hours of hiking up and down ridges each way through a rain forest dotted with cocoa and poppy fields. I would not advise or encourage anyone to attempt a visit to these habitats currently. One must survivie several military inspections and check points just to get to the jumping off area. The area is volitile. Just don't do it.
> 
> ...


----------



## NYEric (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks for the info. I'll ask about the DVD next time I find Ecuagenera at a show.


----------



## Rick (Jan 17, 2013)

FrankRC said:


> Fischeri grows on exposed granite cliff surfaces with constant seepage intermixed with phrag longiflolium. The habitat is warm, bordering on hot, humid and bright and that is how I culture my plants. Airflow must be copious. I have a few pictures of the species growing side by side... As the fischeri habitat is not located on the side of the road it can postulated that the two species grow side by side naturally and have for quite some time. The form of longifilium that grows in this habitat is spectacular...



Can you percieve any difference in culture requirements for longifolium vs. fisheri?

Should you be able to grow them side by side in the same GH without doing anything different for them?


----------



## FrankRC (Jan 17, 2013)

Rick said:


> Can you percieve any difference in culture requirements for longifolium vs. fisheri?
> 
> Should you be able to grow them side by side in the same GH without doing anything different for them?



From my perspective, there is no difference in culture. Both species generally enjoy bright light and copious amounts of water at the roots... Not flowing over or sitting on the plant, at the roots. The cliff surfaces that make up this habitat are covered in wet mud that is held in place by the vegetation.


----------



## Rick (Jan 17, 2013)

FrankRC said:


> From my perspective, there is no difference in culture. Both species generally enjoy bright light and copious amounts of water at the roots... Not flowing over or sitting on the plant, at the roots. The cliff surfaces that make up this habitat are covered in wet mud that is held in place by the vegetation.



Thanks Frank

That's been kind of my point with regards to a lot of the culture advice that seems to vary species by species.

From a toxicologist standpoint we see multitudes of species existing under the exact same environmental conditions, but with considerably differing sensitivities to different toxicants.

My longifolium has done fantastic over the years (it got even better low K), but fischeri sitting within a foot or two of them on the bench haven't done well until I cut K way down and made an effort to keep pot EC low.

The difference in sensitivity (or tolerance) could have just as much to do with just the size difference between the two plants as oposed to a species specific size adjusted tolerance.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 17, 2013)

sounds likely, and though things can grow close together in the woods/jungle, sometimes the microclimate is different. if one species is growing in a slightly higher or lower spot, or one that is wet but not cliff runoff and other is on cliff, there likely are different root conditions, though from a distance they both may look like they grow 'sunny, wet and hot'. especially if under one tree there is one mycorrhizae and another under the other (just examples for thought)


----------



## Rick (Jan 17, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> sounds likely, and though things can grow close together in the woods/jungle, sometimes the microclimate is different. if one species is growing in a slightly higher or lower spot, or one that is wet but not cliff runoff and other is on cliff, there likely are different root conditions, though from a distance they both may look like they grow 'sunny, wet and hot'. especially if under one tree there is one mycorrhizae and another under the other (just examples for thought)



That's always considered, but I've done a lot of niche analysis for different organism groups over the years and that level of detail rarely becomes important. Even at the orchid level, the habitats that I see things growing in New England are quite a bit different than down in North Carolina and Tennessee. Then our conditions in the GH are nowhere what they are in the jungle. The range of physical conditions are highly variable, and when you boil it down to a scale of a foot or so you really end up with about 99% overlap of physical condition parameters. 

Also I can't recall where,but a recent paper I saw on orchid mycorrhizae indicated that species specificity wasn't what is was initially thought to be for a large grouping of tropical species. Lots of overlap.

But I bet top dollar the pollinator that takes care of longifolilum is different from the one that deals with fischeri and same for most of the other flowering plants (barring temporal separtion of species using the same pollinator).


----------

