# Phragmipedium exstaminodium



## Phrag-Plus (Nov 28, 2008)

I would like to bring back some interrogation about Phragmipedium exstaminodium,
I did read an old but very interesting thread and discussion concerning the caudatum alliance… I did miss that one too... And I would like to know what you are thinking about this specie now. 

I did read on that thread, than some of you are considering extaminodium as a mutation of popowii...? It was my first opinion and I was convinced abut that too. But when it blooms two years ago my opinion did change.... 
There is much more difference in the flower than just the lack of the staminode... 

Exstaminodium pouches opening are rounder and wider at the junction of petals. The petals are wide like ribons and hold horizontally looks like it protecting the pouch opening. Petals and ventral are much shorter.













The popowii pouches are more oval and thinner at the junction of petals. The petals are thinner too and hold vertically like shoulders each side of the pouch and they are very long. The dorsal and ventral are long. 











Did anybody have pictures of that specie for comparaison...?


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2008)

Earl Bailey who owns Orchid Babies in Birmingham Alabama has a couple of awarded extaminodiums. I believe he has 3 adult siblings and there are now selfings available from 2 of them. I saw one of the adults in bloom about 3 or 4 years ago, and recent photos. The petals are very long (as long as the popowii I've seen). They are beautifully dark, and the sepals and pouch also seemed somewhat larger than popowii.

You may need to look for identifiers other than flower metrics to consider this a different species. I think it is geographically isolated (southern Mexico in Chiapas highlands). I don't know if anyone has done any chromosome counts or DNA analysis.


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Nov 29, 2008)

Rick said:


> Earl Bailey who owns Orchid Babies in Birmingham Alabama has a couple of awarded extaminodiums. I believe he has 3 adult siblings and there are now selfings available from 2 of them. I saw one of the adults in bloom about 3 or 4 years ago, and recent photos. The petals are very long (as long as the popowii I've seen). They are beautifully dark, and the sepals and pouch also seemed somewhat larger than popowii.
> 
> You may need to look for identifiers other than flower metrics to consider this a different species. I think it is geographically isolated (southern Mexico in Chiapas highlands). I don't know if anyone has done any chromosome counts or DNA analysis.



Thanks Rick, Yes I’ve seen some photos of those plants from Orchid Babies. 
And it is that why I thought it was a popowii mutation in the past too. 

Those pictures show me than they looks much more like a popowii than my exstaminodium. And what it’s confusing me, and make me wonder is the description of the awarded plant too, they mention than some flowers did have some part or partial staminodes??? 

When they describe this specie, they said than “In the population of Chiapas the staminode was missing all together. And it was clear that this was a stable characteristic” and “ the missing staminode, which is a completely stable feature of the plants in Chiapas”

When I’ve seen mine 2 years ago I realize than it was not looking like popowii at all it is very different and don’t have any part of staminode. But in the same time I don’t have any other source to compare with it. It is that why I did post that thread to see if I can have some more information or confirmation. 

Now, I’m wondering if there is some possibility than some popowii without staminode could be identifying as exstaminodium ...?


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2008)

This idea is more for speculation than anything else, but I am reminded of a reptile example that may be appropriate.

There is a population of whiptail lizards in New Mexico that are parthenogenic, and considered a novel species. It turns out that this parthenogenic population is the result of hybridization between to adjacent populations of 2 different whiptail species that have different ploidy.

The parthenogenic population is self supporting and does not breed back to either of the original species so there are no intergrades (based on external metrics)to either of the parent species. I have read that there is a similar population of a parthenogenic species of night lizard in South America.

So the development of a different reproductive strategy to specialize in novel habitats (or ranges) may not be that novel of a strategy in the development of new species. Could it be possible that exstaminodium is a parthenogenic hybrid of the standard caudatum and popowii??

I guess whether by hybridization or random mutation, a new species is a new species at some point. Someone always feels obliged to draw the line somewhere. Reproductive isolation with development of a distinct population border is the primary reason to be a species. Self fertilization and range (so far as known) are good reasons for exstaminodium to be a species rather than variety. However, if the range of exstaminodium is found to overlap with popowii then we may classify it as something else.:sob:


----------



## Scooby5757 (Nov 29, 2008)

It has to breed true, right? So if you had a popowii without a staminode and selfed it, most likely the progeny would have a staminode. Whereas with exstaminodium all the progeny have no staminode like the parents.


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Nov 30, 2008)

Rick said:


> This idea is more for speculation than anything else,
> 
> So the development of a different reproductive strategy to specialize in novel habitats (or ranges) may not be that novel of a strategy in the development of new species. Could it be possible that exstaminodium is a parthenogenic hybrid of the standard caudatum and popowii??
> 
> I guess whether by hybridization or random mutation, a new species is a new species at some point. Someone always feels obliged to draw the line somewhere. Reproductive isolation with development of a distinct population border is the primary reason to be a species. Self fertilization and range (so far as known) are good reasons for exstaminodium to be a species rather than variety. However, if the range of exstaminodium is found to overlap with popowii then we may classify it as something else.:sob:



Hi Rick, I do understand and agreeing with you than flower metrics is not enough to recognise new specie. And I’m absolutely agreeing with you about what species and evolution are... It is very interesting and brings lots of wondering... 

Is it a parthenogenic hybrid? When I saw my plant in bloom, especially the way the petals are joining far from the column forming a shield over the pouch opening I found than it was very different and interesting characteristic. I did bloom many others plants from that group and their primary hybrids but never saw anything like that before. 

If there is not much or clear differences between popowii and exstaminodium, what will happen if we find one popowii in Guatemala without staminode. This is a possibility, it happen sometimes in breeding. We are not speculating about overlapping range of the population now just a weird popowii in its population. But I’m wondering witch name is going to be put on the tag? 

I would like to have more information’s and pictures regarding exstaminodium. From now I’m comparing only 2 or 3 plants in collection with the describe population. 
I may speculate but it is the only way I can use to try to understand why:
1)	The literatures mention than in the Chiapas colony, the missing stamiode is stable even under artificial propagation. 
2)	Why some exstaminodium in cultivation did show part of or partial staminode now?
3)	Why they look more like popowii than mine?
4)	Why they get recognition and awards if they don’t show the basic characteristic of the lacking of staminode?

I’m just tried to understand....


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Nov 30, 2008)

Scooby5757 said:


> It has to breed true, right? So if you had a popowii without a staminode and selfed it, most likely the progeny would have a staminode. Whereas with exstaminodium all the progeny have no staminode like the parents.



Sound's right to me, but my wondering is why some exstaminodium do have parts or partial staminodes now in cultivation?


----------



## likespaphs (Nov 30, 2008)

are you saying that there are exstaminodium with partial staminodes in cultivation? if so, maybe those are 'freaks'... or weird exstaminodium?

i've heard that they typically self pollinate. is this true?

any way to get a photo of the staminode area?


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Nov 30, 2008)

likespaphs said:


> are you saying that there are exstaminodium with partial staminodes in cultivation? if so, maybe those are 'freaks'... or weird exstaminodium?
> 
> i've heard that they typically self pollinate. is this true?
> 
> any way to get a photo of the staminode area?



Yes it's a self pollinate specie...
And the description found in the AQ+
3 of them don't mention any presence of staminodes or part of it....? 
Chiapas CBR/AOS (June 1992) 
Dorsal: 2.5 x 13.0
Pétale: 2.1 x 48.5
Synsepale: 4.4 x 11.0
Pouch: 3.0 x 5.6

Windy Hill HCC/AOS (April 2005) 
Dorsal: 2.7 x 14.1
Petals: 1.6 x 64.5
Synsepale: 3.7 x 12.4
Pouch: 2.5 x 5.4

ORCHIDbabies Gandalf CHM/AOS (May 2005)
Dorsal: 2.5 x 16.0
Petals: 1.7 x 73.0
Synsepale: 4.3 x 14.5
Pouch: 2.4 x 6.0
With acerose staminode 1mm x 5mm between visible pollinia (identified by H. Koopowitz.)

Windy Hill AM/AOS (April 2006)
Dorsal: 2.0 x 15.7
Petals: 1.8 x 72.0
Synsepale: 3.9 x 13.4
Pouch: 2.7 x 5.8

ORCHIDbabies Wotan (May 2006)
Dorsal: 2.8 x 14.5
Petals: 1.8 x 60.0
Synsepale: 5.0 x 12.6
Pouch: 2.5 x 6.0
“Our flowers show partially develop staminode “ (Identify by H. Koopwitz and P. Cribb)


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 30, 2008)

Interesting discussion. Will it ever be resolved?


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2008)

I think the Windy Hill AM plant is related to the Orchid Babies plants too.

Do you have similar flower descriptions for awarded popowii?


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 1, 2008)

Rick said:


> I think the Windy Hill AM plant is related to the Orchid Babies plants too.
> 
> Do you have similar flower descriptions for awarded popowii?


To name a few...

Popowii ‘Hong Yangtze’ AM/AOS (April 2005) , Orchid limited
Dorsal : 3.3 x 17.5 cm
Petals: 1.1 x 78.7
Synsepals: 5.4 x 15.5
Pouch: 3.4 x 6.1

‘Hipp’ AM/AOS, Windsong Orchids
Dorsal : 2.5 x 17.0 cm
Petals: 1.4 x 70.0
Synsepals: 4.5 x 16.5
Pouch: 2.5 x 6.5


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 1, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> Interesting discussion. Will it ever be resolved?


----------



## Leo Schordje (Dec 10, 2008)

Rick - I enjoy these discussions, a speculation has been made and I thought I should weigh in. I don't mean to bust anyones chops - BUT - The Windy Hill plants did not come from Orchid Babies. I am not at liberty to disclose all the details, but Windy Hill received several flasks from me, the flasks came from seed pods collected from Phrag extaminodia plants that were originally in the collection of Sterling Dickenson of San Cristobol, Chiapas, Mexico. An un-named Mid-West orchid person actually did the importing, and asked me to handle the seed pods. He kept the plants. When the plants first bloomed he almost tossed them for their defective flowers, he had thought he was given popowii and did not know about exstaminodia. 

Sterling Dickenson was a retired physician living in Chiapas, whose garden was entirely landscaped with native trees and plants. Orchids were a passion of Sterling's. He found Cypripedium irapeanum and other rare slippers in the hills there. 

Point is I know fact certain Windy Hill's Phrag exstaminodia never lived in the southern US, and don't have anything to do with Orchid Babies. They trace directly to Chiapas Mexico. They were from a separate importation that happened at a different time. This all happened almost 20 or 25 years ago. Marilyn is one of the few growers talented enough that she got her plants to survive from flask. I produced about 25 flasks, and to my knowledge at best there are maybe 10 plants surviving of all these seedlings. Good news is some of those 10 survivors went on to produce more progeny. Marilyn is one of the few to keep this species going long term in cultivation. She is a great grower. 
Leo


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 10, 2008)

Thanks Leo. You should write a little history book on orchids, and not lose the information to posterity. You have the knowledge and experience to do so.


----------



## Rick (Dec 10, 2008)

I didn't say that Marilyn got her plants from Earl. But there is a reference on his website that his 2 awarded adult plants are related to another awarded clone that he doesn't own (and Windy Hill/Marilyn's seem likely).

He does allot of sharing with Marilyn, so I was guessing he got his original plants from Marilyn (who got hers from you apparently).

Marilyn and Earl get around to allot of the same shows in the south. So I wouldn't be too sure that Extstaminodiums haven't been circulating around down here.

Anyway there are not allot of awarded exstaminodiums, so we could conjecture what Earl's plants are a sibling too.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Dec 11, 2008)

Sorry, I get protective of Marilyn, she doesn't always get the credit for her expertise in Phrags and orchids generally that she deserves. I didn't consider that the relationship to Earl might have been the other way, she supplying him. That is certainly is possible. Marilyn is one of the few that really makes a point of keeping the rare species she has going, long term. She doesn't try to have one of everything. She knows what she can grow and tries to limit herself to keeping those species going. You should see her display pots of Mexipedium xerophyticum.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 11, 2008)

See, now you're just tempting me to make a trip to visit her, then she'll hate you forever!


----------



## Rick (Dec 11, 2008)

Leo Schordje said:


> Sorry, I get protective of Marilyn, she doesn't always get the credit for her expertise in Phrags and orchids generally that she deserves. I didn't consider that the relationship to Earl might have been the other way, she supplying him. That is certainly is possible. Marilyn is one of the few that really makes a point of keeping the rare species she has going, long term. She doesn't try to have one of everything. She knows what she can grow and tries to limit herself to keeping those species going. You should see her display pots of Mexipedium xerophyticum.



I totally agree with you Leo.

She is very soft spoken and modest in person, but her results definitely speak for themselves. I enjoy my visits with her at the Memphis show, and I have always done well with her plants. Her OD article on phrag culture should be at the top of the list of every phrag growers first review list.


Earl has done well for himself too over a relatively short time (especially in the flasking realm). Plus he's ravenous to learn new things, and try things out, which is why I think he works well with Marilyn.


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 12, 2008)

SlipperFan said:


> Thanks Leo. You should write a little history book on orchids, and not lose the information to posterity. You have the knowledge and experience to do so.



I'm aggreing with you Dot, 
thanks Leo, those details are very interesting I'm learning a lot on that forum...


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 12, 2008)

Leo Schordje said:


> Rick - I enjoy these discussions, a speculation has been made and I thought I should weigh in. I don't mean to bust anyones chops - I produced about 25 flasks, and to my knowledge at best there are maybe 10 plants surviving of all these seedlings. Good news is some of those 10 survivors went on to produce more progeny. Marilyn is one of the few to keep this species going long term in cultivation. She is a great grower.
> Leo



Hi Leo, you can say 12 plants now, and more progeny...


----------



## Phyllis (Dec 23, 2008)

*Regarding Phrag. exstaminodium.....*

Dear Leo and Rick:

Here's the story: In 2003, ORCHIDbabies bought all the Phrags and Paphs in the Fred and Mary Kaufman's greenhouse. Included were seedlings marked "wallisii." These seedlings originated from a flask from Paphanatics. They were raised as wallisii until they bloomed, and it was obvious they were exstaminodiums. Photos were sent to Harold Koopowitz, who identified the plant. One was sold to Marilyn at the Memphis show (probably in 2004), who later received an AM/AOS on this exstaminodium. At the same show, the ORCHIDbabies Phrag. exstaminodium 'Gandalf' had bloom damage and was not awarded. A year later it was awarded a CHM/AOS and Phrag exstaminodium 'Woton' was awarded an AM/AOS. Selfings from both these plants have been made. Additionally, Orchids Limited has one of these flasks, so that the gene pool is extended even further. Both of you were right - I agree that Marilyn is one of the very best Phrag growers in the US. There are only a few growers in the US that can grow such beautiful popowiis. We are still trying to catch up to Marilyn!:clap:


----------



## john mickel (Dec 23, 2008)

*paph extaminodium*

Ok - this is a great debate - Heres the - point -Earl Baliey grew these babies on from a flsk from Koopowitz and Hasegawa - then he bloomed them and got them awarded as such - as his supplier - If you don't trust - an AOS Judge then we have a big problem - You can't come along 2 years later and say everyone awarded a wrong species - as such - Earl shows pictures of Exstamino - - Let it go - declare a seperate species and get it awarded - untill then be glad someone has plants available -J


----------



## Rick (Dec 23, 2008)

Phyllis said:


> Dear Leo and Rick:
> 
> Here's the story: In 2003, ORCHIDbabies bought all the Phrags and Paphs in the Fred and Mary Kaufman's greenhouse. Included were seedlings marked "wallisii." These seedlings originated from a flask from Paphanatics. They were raised as wallisii until they bloomed, and it was obvious they were exstaminodiums. Photos were sent to Harold Koopowitz, who identified the plant. One was sold to Marilyn at the Memphis show (probably in 2004), who later received an AM/AOS on this exstaminodium. At the same show, the ORCHIDbabies Phrag. exstaminodium 'Gandalf' had bloom damage and was not awarded. A year later it was awarded a CHM/AOS and Phrag exstaminodium 'Woton' was awarded an AM/AOS. Selfings from both these plants have been made. Additionally, Orchids Limited has one of these flasks, so that the gene pool is extended even further. Both of you were right - I agree that Marilyn is one of the very best Phrag growers in the US. There are only a few growers in the US that can grow such beautiful popowiis. We are still trying to catch up to Marilyn!:clap:



Very cool!!

Any speculation where Paphinatics got there breeding stock from?


----------



## Phyllis (Dec 23, 2008)

Rick: It was a great accident! Earl thinks he remembers that someone said that they had the same "problem" in Australia! We have no idea of any further history of the original source of the exstaminodium, than what I typed before. See article by Dressler in the Orchid Digest a few years ago - they are all from one small locale in Mexico.


----------



## Rick (Dec 24, 2008)

Thanks Phyllis. It's also great to hear from you again too this holiday season.

We have had many debates on this forum about taxonomy, with the debate usually started by:

"It looks like a hybrid".

From there it usually drifts into questions of what is normal variation for the species, and problems with source documentation.

Not to pick on you, but this thread demonstrates both of these points fairly well for the orchid world in general.

It kind of supports Birk's (or John Mickel's) view that once plants are removed from the wild you might as well ditch the concept of what a true species is, and just enjoy the flowers for what they are.


----------



## john mickel (Dec 24, 2008)

*Exstaminodium*

Great Rick - I enjoy any blooming and we are lucky to have suppliers like Earl and Alice - Thats the whole point -Once they are gone - they are gone - j


----------



## NYEric (Dec 24, 2008)

Nooooooo! :sob:


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 25, 2008)

Interesting point, I did bring back that thread to talk about exstaminodium to clarify some of my interrogations. My goal was to get some more information about that specie from this forum’s growers who got that specie in cultivation and to compare their experiences and results with mine. Not to pick on anybody! Unfortunately the only way we get some more information about those plants descriptions it is when they are getting awards. 
The second point was than I wanted to see more photos, especially close up...etc... 

Now it becomes more like a religion, and we are talking about, trusting mislabelled flask, trusting AOS judges, trusting and not picking suppliers and to not asking question about species when they are not coming directly from the wild....? Sorry!

As a biologist, I do understand the principle than Rick is referring, but for me it doesn’t mean than we shall accept everything without any questions. Taxonomy is not a game it is a science for references. And if a description doesn’t fit the scientific references I will have the right to say why and ask some more questions... 

I’m glad! I did receive an Email yesterday with this drawing from the original description of exstaminodium from Castrano, Hagsater y Aguirre in 1980, and I’m very please to finally see something resembling and matching exactly to my photos and my plant description.


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 25, 2008)

Good for you, Jean-Pierre!


----------



## Rick (Dec 25, 2008)

Phrag-Plus said:


> As a biologist, I do understand the principle than Rick is referring, but for me it doesn’t mean than we shall accept everything without any questions. Taxonomy is not a game it is a science for references. And if a description doesn’t fit the scientific references I will have the right to say why and ask some more questions...



I agree with you (as a fellow biologist), and because this is text and not conversation you probably cannot tell the subtle note of frustration in my last post for the same reasons as you gave. Given the lack of known material for this plant I was hoping to track back from the very limited (with apparent variations) awarded captive F1's back to directly to their wild origin. And once again the documentation chain was broken. So now all we have is the chain of trust as you describe, and not much science.

One other thing to keep in mind though, is that Koopowitz was involved with Paphinatics for some time, and his taxonomic endorsement of the ID of the Orchid Babies plants may have more to it than just a simple ID comparison to the literature description (i.e. he may be aware of the original parent stock).


----------



## john mickel (Dec 26, 2008)

*Phrag exstaminodium ?*

This is funny - Rick and Jean - If you look in phrags in Jay Pfal's - Internet Orchid Specied Photo Encyclopedia - Under Extamin. you get a picture of a very green phrag - like your pics of popowii ---- then when you look up popo. you see a group of " awarded " phrags tan and bronze much like your pictures of extamin. --- Go figure -j.


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 26, 2008)

Rick said:


> I agree with you (as a fellow biologist), and because this is text and not conversation you probably cannot tell the subtle note of frustration in my last post for the same reasons as you gave. Given the lack of known material for this plant I was hoping to track back from the very limited (with apparent variations) awarded captive F1's back to directly to their wild origin. And once again the documentation chain was broken. So now all we have is the chain of trust as you describe, and not much science.
> 
> One other thing to keep in mind though, is that Koopowitz was involved with Paphinatics for some time, and his taxonomic endorsement of the ID of the Orchid Babies plants may have more to it than just a simple ID comparison to the literature description (i.e. he may be aware of the original parent stock).



You are absolutely right; text and conversation are something else, especially when you try to understand or explain clearly your point of view with a second language. In a live discussion I can see faces and eyes expressions and people ask you if it is what you really mean. I did felt some frustration in your last post, but I got it like we have to surrender, to give it up because we will never get any answers... And it may be right... I should write to him directly now... Thanks!


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Dec 26, 2008)

john mickel said:


> This is funny - Rick and Jean - If you look in phrags in Jay Pfal's - Internet Orchid Specied Photo Encyclopedia - Under Extamin. you get a picture of a very green phrag - like your pics of popowii ---- then when you look up popo. you see a group of " awarded " phrags tan and bronze much like your pictures of extamin. --- Go figure -j.



Nice pictures John! But I never mention anything about colouration as a criterion? And the plants you ask me to look at it now are the one who lead me into all that wondering and suspicion... Sorry! 
Have a kind and objective look at the previous photo and the drawing the way the petals projection are forming a shield over the pouch, the way they are falling each side of it, look at the dorsal and ventral length... Read the first description of the specie and compare it with popowii than with the awarded plants descriptions and photo. You’ll have fun!
If you don’t see how different they are, you are right, I’ll find it funny!


----------



## Rick (Dec 26, 2008)

john mickel said:


> This is funny - Rick and Jean - If you look in phrags in Jay Pfal's - Internet Orchid Specied Photo Encyclopedia - Under Extamin. you get a picture of a very green phrag - like your pics of popowii ---- then when you look up popo. you see a group of " awarded " phrags tan and bronze much like your pictures of extamin. --- Go figure -j.



What is also interesting is that the exstaminodium picture is Orchid Babies "Gandolf". Which if you look at pictures of other bloomings of this flower (or see it in person) is a darker flower within the range of colors typical for popowii.

May be lighting or digital translation issues.


----------



## john mickel (Dec 27, 2008)

*Phrag exstaminodium*

and look again the picture has a date of 1984? - I dont belive Earl had this plant in 1984 -I'll just have to wait for my 2 awarded plant selfings bloom out - Jean - I will revisit the drawings -j


----------



## Rick (Dec 27, 2008)

john mickel said:


> and look again the picture has a date of 1984? - I dont belive Earl had this plant in 1984 -I'll just have to wait for my 2 awarded plant selfings bloom out - Jean - I will revisit the drawings -j



1984 is the date the species taxonomic description was published (see the drawing from Jean-Pierre's previous post). Orchidbabies Gandalf wasn't even a glimpse in his mother's eye in 1984. There should be a space or comma between the proper taxonomic name and the photo credit on Jay's site.


----------



## john mickel (Dec 28, 2008)

*Ricks reply*

Good - I learn everyday - I wish I had a green house - It was 41 on my patio this morning - and I'm trying to grow Phrags ???? -Ha -j - San Diego does have a winter


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Mar 31, 2010)

Phrag-Plus said:


> I would like to bring back some interrogation about Phragmipedium exstaminodium,
> I did read an old but very interesting thread and discussion concerning the caudatum alliance… I did miss that one too... And I would like to know what you are thinking about this specie now.
> 
> I did read on that thread, than some of you are considering extaminodium as a mutation of popowii...? It was my first opinion and I was convinced abut that too. But when it blooms two years ago my opinion did change....
> ...



They are back!


----------

