# My First Fairieanum



## masaccio (Jan 18, 2021)

I have no idea how this is going to turn out, but it's going to have to be a real lemon for me not to love it.


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Jan 18, 2021)

Awwww congrats!!! 

No matter how she goes, you will love it like no other! She's your first!


----------



## Paphluvr (Jan 18, 2021)

Dorsal looks dark. It tends to be a consistant species, don't know that I've ever seen a really bad one. Also, it's one of my favorite Paphs. Congratulations!


----------



## Djthomp28 (Jan 18, 2021)

This is certainly a favorite species of mine. Please update us once it opens! Waiting can to so tough.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 18, 2021)

does look dark


----------



## Don I (Jan 19, 2021)

I need a first fairieanum. I'm envious.
Don


----------



## richgarrison (Jan 19, 2021)

Don I said:


> I need a first fairieanum. I'm envious.
> Don



Just Do It! <nike>


----------



## masaccio (Jan 19, 2021)

Ozpaph said:


> does look dark


The cross is 'Mini Red' x 'Red Hot Fire'. Bought it at Deep Cut last year. Almost positive it came from Marlow. The species has always reminded me of the gold-gilt headdresses in the musical "The King and I." Those up-turned petals and the shape of the hood. That can't be an accident. Art imitating life. 
It's been utterly unproblematic for me, and a pretty little plant, to boot.


----------



## BrucherT (Jan 19, 2021)

masaccio said:


> I have no idea how this is going to turn out, but it's going to have to be a real lemon for me not to love it.
> 
> View attachment 24775


It looks to me like it’s going to be great! Plant looks stellar and thank you for showing it! Can’t wait to see the updates!


----------



## BrucherT (Jan 19, 2021)

richgarrison said:


> Just Do It! <nike>


I have some 2 years out of flask. Orchid Zone breeding, “Porky’s” x “Pink Perfect,” they spent a year too long in flask and were leggy coming out but two years later they are mostly separated into single or 2-plant compots and looking strong so far. I hope for first bloom next winter.


----------



## blondie (Jan 19, 2021)

Looks lovely and dark, hopfully should be a lovely bloom.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 19, 2021)

BrucherT said:


> It looks to me like it’s going to be great! Plant looks stellar and thank you for showing it! Can’t wait to see the updates!


That's so nice of you to say. Thank you!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 19, 2021)

BrucherT said:


> I have some 2 years out of flask. Orchid Zone breeding, “Porky’s” x “Pink Perfect,” they spent a year too long in flask and were leggy coming out but two years later they are mostly separated into single or 2-plant compots and looking strong so far. I hope for first bloom next winter.


Good luck! Hope to see some pictures later on. A flask of these would be so cool.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 19, 2021)

BrucherT said:


> It looks to me like it’s going to be great! Plant looks stellar and thank you for showing it! Can’t wait to see the updates!


Thank you! I love the plant just for itself, so delicate and pretty. And there's another growth very well along behind the blooming one.


----------



## GuRu (Jan 22, 2021)

It looks very promising to me and I'm waiting on the flower update !


----------



## masaccio (Jan 22, 2021)

It seems to be in full form now. Reasonably pleased, not ecstatic. Will see how it does next time. The stem is about 12-13" from top of pot.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 23, 2021)

Natural light.


----------



## musa (Jan 23, 2021)

Beautiful!


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Jan 23, 2021)

Not bad color. 

The dorsal is pinched. Maybe better next blooming since only first bloom. 

Still, great job to bloom a fairrieanum!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 23, 2021)

DrLeslieEe said:


> Not bad color.
> 
> The dorsal is pinched. Maybe better next blooming since only first bloom.
> 
> Still, great job to bloom a fairrieanum!



Thank you! I thought so too, about the dorsal. I really wanted this sort of evaluation. It's also nodding - is that normal for the species? I tied the stem to beyond vertical and I still had to shoot up. The pedicel seems excessively long. I see what you mean by natural light. Smartphones seems to compensate rather well for what would seem to be low lighting. I think I learned to spell it correctly too!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 23, 2021)

masaccio said:


> Thank you! I thought so too, about the dorsal. I really wanted this sort of evaluation. It's also nodding - is that normal for the species? I tied the stem to beyond vertical and I still had to shoot up. The pedicel seems excessively long. A little more subtlety in color would also be nice. I see what you mean by natural light. Smartphones seems to compensate rather well for what would seem to be low lighting. I think I learned to spell it correctly too!


I quoted myself. How annoying!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 23, 2021)

Tyler's fairieannum totally won the day.


----------



## cpmaniac (Jan 23, 2021)

If you have access to _Frederick Sander: The Orchid King, _written by Arther Swinson, there's a fascinating account of the rediscovery of this species in 1905. Also, if you are an AOS member, you can view Theresa Hill's lecture on the species on the society website.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 23, 2021)

cpmaniac said:


> If you have access to _Frederick Sander: The Orchid King, _written by Arther Swinson, there's a fascinating account of the rediscovery of this species in 1905. Also, if you are an AOS member, you can view Theresa Hill's lecture on the species on the society website.


Done. Also, I should, and will, rejoin the AOS. Thank you.


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Jan 23, 2021)

The nodding in paphs is normal, especially in fairrieanums, to protect from water getting into pouches in nature. 

There are many ways to prep the flower for best visual presentation to counter this nodding feature. One trick is to using the following steps:

1. Let the floral scape to develop naturally without staking

2. When flower opens, let the dorsal open fully before attaching to stake. This is important because the dorsal-pouch angle will expand wider to show better. Many people stake flower too early. In multiflorals, wait till first flower opens, then stake behind it so first flower lies horizontal. The rest will naturally open horizontally.

3. The staking is an art. Make sure the stake is as high as the dorsal tip of the flower after insertion in pot. Then take 3 clips. First clip midway up the inflorescence. Second clip at the point below the ovary of flower (or the point where flower joins the main stem). If this is sufficient, the next step can be forgo.

4. The third clip can be used to tip flower upwards by attaching carefully where the ovary joins the actual flower. This step must be done gently by tilting the flower backwards by the pouch, and attaching the clip on the ovary right behind the flower.

Some people use floral non-stick black tape for these 3 steps.

When all is done the flower is facing forward and tilted up to the viewer. Be gentle or you can snap the flower off!!! You've been warned!

Let me know if this works.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 24, 2021)

DrLeslieEe said:


> The nodding in paphs is normal, especially in fairrieanums, to protect from water getting into pouches in nature. The trick is to follow the following steps:
> 
> 1. Let the floral scape to develop naturally without staking
> 2. When flower opens, let the dorsal open fully before attaching to stake. This is important because the dorsal-pouch angle will expand wider to show better. Many people stake flower too early. In multiflorals, wait till first flower opens, then stake behind it so first flower lies horizontal. The rest will naturally open horizontally.
> ...



Thank you! Steps one and two are good. I remember other warnings against staking too soon. #3 will be a a helpful challenge. I'll take the risk.


----------



## GuRu (Jan 24, 2021)

This intense colouration was what I ment when I wrote 'looks very promising to me'. So I'm pleased to see it how I expected it.


----------



## Michael Bonda (Jan 24, 2021)

I think the flower is fantastic in color. Mine bloomed many weeks ago for the first time and here’s what I got:


I purchased the plant years ago and was expecting the standard color. Can’t complain since any blooming is a win win


----------



## masaccio (Jan 24, 2021)

I think yours has lovely form, the stem impressive! It seems a little larger and to have opened much flatter than mine as well. I might have been disappointed if I was expecting a a coloratum and received an album. I saw your earlier post and I was casting an eagle eye on mine. Thanks for your comment! Maybe the dorsal on mine will be better later on as Leslie hinted.


----------



## BrucherT (Jan 24, 2021)

masaccio said:


> Natural light.
> View attachment 24926


Absolutely wonderful. This is a version of how fairrieanum is supposed to look. It’s supposed to be wild and exotic. Screw the moon-ass flat-dorsal bullshit. This is wonderful. Beautiful. Endlessly intriguing. Healthy. Well grown.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 24, 2021)

BrucherT said:


> Absolutely wonderful. This is a version of how fairrieanum is supposed to look. It’s supposed to be wild and exotic. Screw the moon-ass flat-dorsal bullshit. This is wonderful. Beautiful. Endlessly intriguing. Healthy. Well grown.


Thank you for that heart-felt endorsement! "I feel you", as they say. The first time I saw a photo of the species long ago, I was struck by, as you describe, the wild, exotic, even pagan quality of it. I could be wrong of course, but it seems possible to me for it to have had a direct influence on the art and architecture of southern Asia, it's that special. When I see my own photo, I feel better about it. I think I'll try my hand at improving the presentation.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 28, 2021)

cpmaniac said:


> If you have access to _Frederick Sander: The Orchid King, _written by Arther Swinson, there's a fascinating account of the rediscovery of this species in 1905. Also, if you are an AOS member, you can view Theresa Hill's lecture on the species on the society website.


The book came to day. Very excited. It's a first edition - maybe the only edition, I wouldn't know. There's an unfortunate stamp imprint that went all the way through the dust cover into the otherwise handsome binding. Otherwise it would have been in very good condition for the time. The dust jacket photos, and more importantly the interior plates and text are all in excellent condition, and very interesting. The preface by David Sander bears a dated signature that one assumes is David Sander. The "Sander" part is legible.
Anyway, thank you for turning me on to this.


----------



## cpmaniac (Jan 28, 2021)

It's a great read...you won't be disappointed.


----------



## lanthier (Jan 29, 2021)

Yeah, your first was far more successful than mine. Mine is now shirveling up and dying out altogether. A tiny new growth has formed, but I am not optimistic!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 29, 2021)

lanthier said:


> Yeah, your first was far more successful than mine. Mine is now shirveling up and dying out altogether. A tiny new growth has formed, but I am not optimistic!


You guys are scaring me talking about the difficulty with this one, and killing micranthums too. I swear I'm not doing anything special. I guess I'll just try to continue doing nothing special.


----------



## BrucherT (Jan 29, 2021)

lanthier said:


> Yeah, your first was far more successful than mine. Mine is now shirveling up and dying out altogether. A tiny new growth has formed, but I am not optimistic!


What’s the trouble for yours? I was told “never let them dry out completely. I haven’t and all but one (rootless) flaskling survived, heading into 3rd year.


----------



## BrucherT (Jan 29, 2021)

masaccio said:


> Thank you for that heart-felt endorsement! "I feel you", as they say. The first time I saw a photo of the species long ago, I was struck by, as you describe, the wild, exotic, even pagan quality of it. I could be wrong of course, but it seems possible to me for it to have had a direct influence on the art and architecture of southern Asia, it's that special. When I see my own photo, I feel better about it. I think I'll try my hand at improving the presentation.


YES! “We be of one blood, thou and I.” That’s some Kipling, lol.


----------



## lanthier (Jan 29, 2021)

BrucherT said:


> What’s the trouble for yours? I was told “never let them dry out completely. I haven’t and all but one (rootless) flaskling survived, heading into 3rd year.



I bought it in bud and it quickly bloomed. But declined since. May be too cold. Not dried out. But it seems done.


----------



## Guldal (Jan 29, 2021)

I find it a very nice flower, you've got yourself, masaccio! 
(No matter what the OOCD'ists say about the slightly(!) pinched dorsal - of course, if you go for an award, its nice to know what improvement to look for... and to know, that your first time bloomer posseses potential! Otherwise, I would, in your shoes, just enjoy it, every second it flowers! )


----------



## Guldal (Jan 29, 2021)

masaccio said:


> I think I learned to spell it correctly too!


Only if you spell it like DLE taught you! The plant is named after an esteemable, victorian orchid gentleman, mr. Fairrie - not after the fairies, no matter how delectably enchanting it appears!


----------



## masaccio (Jan 29, 2021)

Guldal said:


> Only if you spell it like DLE taught you! The plant is named after an esteemable, victorian orchid gentleman, mr. Fairrie - not after the fairies, no matter how delectable enchanting it appears!


This is TOO WEIRD. According to my newly acquired bio of Frederick Sander by Arthur Swinson (published 1970), and with a preface by David Sander, the gentleman's name was spelled with one "r", Fairie. (p.153). So then I figured that they added the second "r" when they Latinized his name for the species name. But in reading a little further into the page, I see that the author also refers to the species name as "fairieanum" with one "r". More digging required.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 29, 2021)

Guldal said:


> I find it a very nice flower, you've got yourself, masaccio!
> (No matter what the OOCD'ists say about the slightly(!) pinched dorsal - of course, if you go for an award, its nice to know what improvement to look for... and to know, that your first time bloomer posseses potential! Otherwise, I would, in your shoes, just enjoy it, every second it flowers! )


Thank you! I am enjoying it quite a bit. I can't believe the photos in this thread are from a mere 6-7 days ago.


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Jan 30, 2021)

masaccio said:


> Thank you! I am enjoying it quite a bit. I can't believe the photos in this thread are from a mere 6-7 days ago.


If all goes well, the flower may last a couple more months!

I'm interested to know what you find out about the name (rather a letter) discrepancies. Please update when you make a discovery.


----------



## monocotman (Jan 30, 2021)

Paph paradise have a whole page on the cultivation of this species. Worth a look if you are in doubt.
David


----------



## TropiCool (Jan 30, 2021)

masaccio said:


> ...it seems possible to me for it to have had a direct influence on the art and architecture of southern Asia...


I am often struck by how the art and other cultural expression of pre-globalized societies reflects the forms of their regional nature. Makes sense.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 30, 2021)

DrLeslieEe said:


> If all goes well, the flower may last a couple more months!
> 
> I'm interested to know what you find out about the name (rather a letter) discrepancies. Please update when you make a discovery.



As I referred back to the Swinson/Sander book I was reminded that at the time it was written the term "Cypripedium" was in wide common usage to all include slipper orchids, including the Asian species that we now know more distinctively as Paphiopedilum (of the orchid subfamily Cypripedioidiae). And I remember as well that my first orchid, a "bulldog" paph, also purchased in the early '70s, was indeed labelled "Cypripedium." I had thought that when the transition from Cypripedium to Paphiopedilum became more established, this also entailed a different spelling of the species. Silly me.

I have two books from Jack Kramer: Growing Orchids at your Windows, published in 1963, and Growing Orchids Indoors, published in 1985. In the first, he “Cypripedium fairrieanum,” (two Rs). In the second, he shows that he has adopted the term "Paphiopedilum" but references “Paphiopedilum fairieanum” (one R).

In both of the Cribb and Pridgeon references I have, the spelling is fairrieanum. It seems reasonable to assume that Mr. Kramer and other popular orchid culture writers, as well as others such as the author of the Sanders bio (who was not necessarily himself an orchid enthusiast, as his books encompass a wide rage of subjects), were not too bothered by the exact spelling of long, complicated Latin names as long people understood what they were talking about. I personally find the same phenomenon applies to pronunciation. It seems the explanation is as simple as that.

It also seems reasonable to assume that Mr. Fairie's name is correctly spelled. He wasn't an especially notorious fellow, so it would be difficult to check.


----------



## cpmaniac (Jan 30, 2021)

The spelling with one "r" goes all the way back to Lindley's original description of the plant. All the early books in my orchid library spell it with one "r". I am woefully ignorant of the rules of botanical latin, but in _The Genus Paphiopedilum_, Phillip Cribb states that Lindley made an orthographic error that led to the improper spelling for many years.

Just for fun, here's a screen shot of the illustration from Gustav Reichenbach's _Xenia Orchidacea_:





Cheers,
Paul


----------



## masaccio (Jan 30, 2021)

Hm. Do we know who originally named it, against which Lindley's one "r" spelling would have been deemed incorrect? Or are there hard and fast rules about Latinizing proper names for botanical use? I'd be surprised. Or could Cribb just be calling Lindley's usage incorrect because it didn't fit with his own preference? These guys have serious egos.


----------



## masaccio (Jan 30, 2021)

I've decided my position on this. In my "currently unconventional" spelling of the name, I'm in good company.


----------



## cpmaniac (Jan 30, 2021)

Lindley officially named it it, when he published the species description. I do believe there are strict rules for the latin names used for all species. I believe that's why Cribb insists that two r's are needed. 

I have the 1963 reprint of Veitch's _Manual of Orchidaceous Plants_, originally published in 1887-1894. Since it's in the public domain, here's a photo of some of the text regarding _Cypripedium faireanum_:





I can't argue with Hooker's comments. It is my favorite Paphiopedilum. 
Cheers,
Paul


----------



## masaccio (Jan 30, 2021)

This certainly resolves the issue at hand. How wonderful of you to display these documents. One can certainly imagine worst fates than spending time learning the civilized history of this beguiling species (while at the same time listening to Barbara Bonney singing Bach and Purcell).


----------

