# Splitting hairs.



## jblanford (May 8, 2009)

I have these two P. hirsutissimums in bloom now, I think the first one is v.esquirolei but not sure. They sure are different, both are real nice looking, I'll post some pics and see if anybody has anything to add. Thanks Jim.


----------



## CodPaph (May 8, 2009)

very very nice bloom


----------



## paphreek (May 8, 2009)

Interesting differences and nicely grown plants, as usual Jim!


----------



## JeanLux (May 9, 2009)

interesting duo!!! I googled a bit to read diff. between hirsut. and esqu.; they seem to look quite similar  , esquirolei is said to be somewhat larger in the flower, having a paler background and a darker 'foreground' coloring, its hairs being shorter!? 
The somewhat pending petals of the 2nd are intriguing!! Jean


----------



## biothanasis (May 9, 2009)

Amazing both!!! The second has an interestingly weird shape of petals...!!! Nice...!!!


----------



## P-chan (May 9, 2009)

They're beautiful, but the one on the right seems to have lowii in it...I don't know- they sure are different, however! Nice!


----------



## goldenrose (May 9, 2009)

:clap: :clap: I'll take either!

Here are some differences in Birk's book:
hirsutissimum - "Leaf tip: at times one-toothed, usually the tooth is undeveloped. Leaf markings: Plain, veined when held to the light. Leaf underside: Plain, some red-purple spotting. Plant habit: compact to loose. Stem habit: Short, upright, to normally drooping.
Cool grower, blooming winter.
Esquirolei- "Leaf tip:Acute, one toothed. Leaf markings: Plain, obscure veining on some. Leaf underside: Plain. Plant habit: Loose. Stem habit: upright to slightly drooping." 
Warm grower blooming March-May.


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2009)

The primary difference is supposed to be the amount and length of the hairs on the stems and ovary. The second difference is in flower size.

The nominal form is supposed to have smaller flowers and very hairy stems and ovary. Esquirolei with bigger flowers and less hair. If something is "hirsut" it's supposed to be "hairy". 

The use of the terms "very and less" are obviously subjective, and unless you know someone who has seen verified "hariness quality and quantity" of wild plants of known collection locals I think you are going to get lots of subjective answers. Also this species has been in cultivation for a long time, and I bet there are lots of crosses of the two forms with a smeary range of "hairiness" and flower size.

Since your photos aren't focused on the stems and ovaries, it's hard to get a sense of the primary descriptor for these two plants for comparison.

I can see a fair amount of green on the stems so I can guess that they are both relatively low on hair quantity, especially compared to my plant. What is the flower span? My flowers tend to run 14-16 cm, but I recently purchased an "esquirolei" in bloom that has larger flowers, and relatively "naked" stems.

I origianlly purchesd my plant from Andy's as "esquirolei" but that may be in doubt.

I'll take some stem/ovary pics of mine later and post alongside yours for comparison.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 9, 2009)

Is this like the difference between besseae and dalesandroi?


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2009)

SlipperFan said:


> Is this like the difference between besseae and dalesandroi?



yes


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2009)

*a couple more*

Heres a close up of the stem and ovary of a plant that I purchased as esquirolei, but I think is actually the nominal form or an integrade of the two forms.




A 13cm flower




The plants. Notice how the leaves bend, they are fairly soft and pliable too.




Another plant I purchased in bloom about a year ago also as esquirolei. Can't find the pics, but the flower was 3 or so cm bigger than my original plant, the stem was less hairy, and the foliage is more upright and stiff. In comparison its just a more robust plant and flower.


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2009)

I found a picture of my new "esquirolei" in bloom from last year (April 08). The stem pic is just a crop and enlargement from the flower pic, so it may not be much help. My memory is that its just short fuzz in comparison to my other plant.

This flower is over 16cm I believe.


----------



## goldenrose (May 10, 2009)

Interesting...
I purchased a hirsutissimum from Ernie, it has not bloomed yet, but it has the stiffer leaves, which is fitting the description by Lance.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2009)

Going through the taxonomic descriptions of the varieties by Averyanov demonstrates allot of overlap and variety within and among the varieties.

For instance in flower size:

Nominal (6)10-14(16) cm
esquirolei (10)12-16 cm
chiwuanum 6-8(10) cm

(#) = rare/extreme size in the population.

Also there is no quantification of "hariness", which also seems to vary on the same stem as the flower ages (as with the degree of reflexing and undulation of the petals).

I'm also suspicious about foliage differences because I've had too many plants "change" there general structure to conform with my growing conditions.

Averyanov has seen tons of this species in Vietnam, and indicates that the differences between the "varieties" are probably insignificant, and "are the result of attitudinal differentiation of the species".

i.e upland vs lowland forms of a variable and wide ranging species.


----------



## JeanLux (May 10, 2009)

thanks a lot for all these details Rick!!! All in all hirsut. and esquir. seem to be rather similar !  ! Jean


----------



## jblanford (May 29, 2009)

Sorry it took so long to get back to this thread, Rick had asked for some 
spam and stem/ovary closeups, so here's what I got. The first one that I thought was esquirolei but I'm still not sure.
The first one has a span of just under 5".













The second one is at 6" span.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 29, 2009)

their both esquiroleis Jim. From what I remember hirsutissimum it has wider and floopy leaves like Rick's first plant


----------



## Rick (May 29, 2009)

Based on "hairiness factor", both of yours would be considered esquirolei compared to mine. Based on flower size, your smaller one is the same size (about 13cm) as mine (a good size nominal but smallish esquirolei), and the big one is bigger than the common size range of nominal hirsutisimum and within the normal size range for esquirolei.

As you can see, this is pretty subjective without knowing exactly where the original parents were collected.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jun 3, 2009)

Hey Jim, 
I agree with both Rick's, that both your plants are likely esquirolei. My hirsutissimum has fairly dense hairs that are over 1/8 inch long, with the odd hair nearing 1/4 inch. Also note on this plant the flower stem is shorter than the length of the leaves, so the flower is held low, in the foliage. 
I have several esquirolei, and they have various gradations of fuzz, but none as hairy as this clone. All my esquirolei have flower stems longer than the leaves. There is a lot of variation, some I would be hard put to place a definative name on. 
Leo


----------



## slippertalker (Jun 3, 2009)

Rick said:


> Based on "hairiness factor", both of yours would be considered esquirolei compared to mine. Based on flower size, your smaller one is the same size (about 13cm) as mine (a good size nominal but smallish esquirolei), and the big one is bigger than the common size range of nominal hirsutisimum and within the normal size range for esquirolei.
> 
> As you can see, this is pretty subjective without knowing exactly where the original parents were collected.



That was my first thought also.........


----------



## arcticshaun (Jun 3, 2009)

Well, now there is another plant for my wishlist. Great discussion with pics is just another reason this forum rocks.

Shaun


----------



## Rick (Jun 3, 2009)

Man Leo

That hirsut is really hairy! I think mine is not to far off if my picture was one the same scale. It's pretty weird, but mine also has much more hair up until the bud opens, and as the flower ages it seems to get sparser (to what you see in the picture posted).

I'd guestimate the hair length on mine is also about 1/8" or so. I doubt though that I'll ever be able to narrow a source. That is awesome that you think yours may have originated from Nepal.

It seems like type hirsutisimum is relatively hard to come across compared to esquirolei. Ironic since the nominal form has such a huge range compared to the varieties.

Have you ever selfed this plant?

As you mentioned, you see allot of variation among your plants. Do you have any reason to suspect that you have either natural or man made intergrades of the two varieties?


----------



## slippertalker (Jun 4, 2009)

Both of these species are easy to grow and bloom, especially as they grow large plants. I'm not aware of a lot of seedlings produced from either plant other than the albinistic forms. If you see them next to each other, they are quite different yet closely related. Paph hirsutissimum is quite hirsute, hence the name and Paph esquirolei is less so. One of the easier differences to spot are the pubescent green stems with dark purple hairs with Paph hirsutissimum and the purple black pubescent inflorences with Paph esquirolei.

Both of these species have been grown for many years and are easily available by division.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 4, 2009)

Love those pics guys! super comparison.


----------



## Rick (Jun 4, 2009)

slippertalker said:


> Both of these species are easy to grow and bloom, especially as they grow large plants. I'm not aware of a lot of seedlings produced from either plant other than the albinistic forms. If you see them next to each other, they are quite different yet closely related. Paph hirsutissimum is quite hirsute, hence the name and Paph esquirolei is less so. One of the easier differences to spot are the pubescent green stems with dark purple hairs with Paph hirsutissimum and the purple black pubescent inflorences with Paph esquirolei.
> 
> Both of these species have been grown for many years and are easily available by division.



They do grow well and are readily divided, but I beleive it was Sanderianum who documented mass seedling production of this species that would have included indiscriminate crossing of the forms and undocumented hybridization of this taxa with other species. If species seedlings of hirsut or esquirolei are trully rare, then that would be encouraging to consider whether the plants in our collections are directly descended from jungle collected ancestors, and not man made intergrades of the different forms.

However, I think this species (and forms) have been seed raised in greater quantities than you think. :wink:


----------

