# First philippinense



## PHRAG (Jun 28, 2006)

The paphs have started arriving. Here is the philippinense I got today from Norman's...

Paph philippinense ('Angel Wings' HCC/AOS x 'Easter Parade' HCC/AOS)


----------



## Marco (Jun 28, 2006)

:clap:


----------



## Gideon (Jun 28, 2006)

That is fantabulous, very very nice :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Heather (Jun 28, 2006)

That is a *gorgeous* philippinense! 
Well shopped!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 28, 2006)

A real beauty and excellent choice!


----------



## John M (Jun 28, 2006)

Love the "shoulders" and the tall spike! The colour of the petals is to die for, too!

As a side note* How can any "lumper" say that Phrags' beautiful, tall, dark, twisted petalled plant, is the same species as my laevigatum?


----------



## Heather (Jun 28, 2006)

John M said:


> As a side note* How can any "lumper" say that Phrags' beautiful, tall, dark, twisted petalled plant, is the same species as my laevigatum?



Exactly why I posted a request under another thread title for a definitive answer on the exact differences!


----------



## Jmoney (Jun 28, 2006)

very nice!


----------



## Mahon (Jun 29, 2006)

Very nice one! I typically am uninterested in Paph. phillippinense, but this a beauty! Nice buy!

-Pat


----------



## PHRAG (Jun 29, 2006)

Can someone tell me what people look for in a "great" philippinense?


----------



## Paphmania (Jun 29, 2006)

Wow! I love the spiral arcuate petals. :clap:


----------



## Mahon (Jun 29, 2006)

...not too familiar with P. phillipinense, but most likely; like this one! Those petals are extended somewhat and not completely drooping like some of those P. phillipinense we all see, especially when they are longer than usual... that's what kind of interested me... I have seen rather ugly ones, that's why I hate this species alot... but if more looked like this, they would appeal more to me for propagation. Where did u get this one? I really like this one!

-Pat


----------



## PHRAG (Jun 29, 2006)

This one is sold by Norman's orchids. I ordered it in bloom for $45 plus shipping. The shipping was pretty expensive for me, because I had to have it overnighted.

The cross is called Angel Wings x Easter Parade.

I love it, but I have never had a philippinense, so I don't really know what I love about it. I was just wondering what other people like, or don't like, about philippinense. I have seen the petals that go straight down too, thats why when I pulled this one out of the box, I was amazed at what it looked like.


----------



## kentuckiense (Jun 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> This one is sold by Norman's orchids. I ordered it in bloom for $45 plus shipping. The shipping was pretty expensive for me, because I had to have it overnighted.
> 
> The cross is called Angel Wings x Easter Parade.
> 
> I love it, but I have never had a philippinense, so I don't really know what I love about it. I was just wondering what other people like, or don't like, about philippinense. I have seen the petals that go straight down too, thats why when I pulled this one out of the box, I was amazed at what it looked like.


It looks great to me. I'm curious as to if you prefer to purchase plants in bloom/high bud. Personally, I hate having to buy plants in bloom. Call me weird, I guess.


----------



## PHRAG (Jun 29, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> It looks great to me. I'm curious as to if you prefer to purchase plants in bloom/high bud. Personally, I hate having to buy plants in bloom. Call me weird, I guess.


 
I am not sure how to answer this. I don't have any absolute rules. I don't buy any Japanese orchids in bloom. But I buy those mostly for the foliage. I buy all of my oncidium intergenerics in spike/flower because they are always in spike/flower  

I have only purchased three phrags of 20 that were in spike, not counting the Don Wimber that blasted on me. And out of the 20 paphs I have bought/am buying only one so far has been in spike. I can't honestly say why I bought the philippinense in bloom. It was only a couple of bucks more so I thought what the heck.

Many of my phals have been in spike when purchased, but for the same reason as the oncidiums, they are always blooming.


----------



## Heather (Jun 29, 2006)

I think what is so spectactular about this one, John, is the petal stance. It seems really unusual not only for this species, but also this specific grex. I have seen others of this cross that have not been that nice - and they have all come from the same vendor. 

Dude, you scored!


----------



## bench72 (Jun 29, 2006)

The tall spike is a big plus... it shows the flowers to better vantage... Also the spiral and colour of the petals are wonderful!

The only other thing that would be a good characteristic on philippinense is the marking on the dorsal... clean marking is better than those with smudgy lines....

You've certainly done well for your first Paph Phrag!


----------



## Jmoney (Jun 29, 2006)

"first bloom in spike" is generally the most desirable (and expensive). previously-bloomed or in-bloom means it's been screened by the seller. not that this one ain't nice, because the color is quite good, and the flowers look very large. but growers will rarely let an award-quality plant out of their grubby hands.


----------



## Park Bear (Jun 29, 2006)

:smitten: :clap:


----------



## Greenpaph (Jun 29, 2006)

Excellent!

My philippinense 'D' is the exact same clone from Normans as well. No where near as nice as this!

thanks


----------



## Heather (Jun 29, 2006)

Greenpaph said:


> Excellent!
> 
> My philippinense 'D' is the exact same clone from Normans as well. No where near as nice as this!
> 
> thanks



Wow, no kidding!? I wonder how mine is going to turn out!


----------



## PHRAG (Jun 29, 2006)

Maybe Norman's sent me a nice philippinense because they knew they were going to have to send me a crappy Bllra? :rollhappy:


----------



## Nautilus (Jun 30, 2006)

That's fabulous! :clap:


----------



## littlefrog (Jun 30, 2006)

I can lump phillipinense and laevigatum together... No problems for me...

Main reason is that as far as I know (and I'm probably wrong) the major difference between the varieties is the petal stance and degree of twist. From that, I'd wager that the plant pictured at the top of this thread is really phil x laevigatum. Or, it has a substantial percentage of laevigatum in the background... Which makes it??? 

This is the reason I'm a lumper. Largely because there is no way to sort out plants now. If they are jungle collected, that is one thing. But, after they have been in captivity for years, and people breed different varieties together without keeping track, it gets hard. I don't mind leaving it phil. var. laevigatum, phil var. roebelinii, etc, but still I don't trust that they are genetically 'pure'.

Rob


----------



## Heather (Jun 30, 2006)

littlefrog said:


> I'd wager that the plant pictured at the top of this thread is really phil x laevigatum. Or, it has a substantial percentage of laevigatum in the background... Which makes it???
> 
> Rob



Why? 
If laevi is generally more blond and less twisty? 
I'm confused....


----------



## littlefrog (Jun 30, 2006)

Heather said:


> Why?
> If laevi is generally more blond and less twisty?
> I'm confused....


I'm not a taxonomist, nor do I play one on TV (or the internet) but, my understanding of laevigatum was that it is supposed to hold its petals in a more outward stance (more of a 30-45 degree angle) with less twist. I think roebelinii holds its petals almost straight down with a lot of twist. Philippinense is somewhere inbetween. I don't know that color is really a diagnostic feature (and never should be enough to split a species, in my opinion). If their natural ranges overlap (I seem to recall that they do), I'd probably call this a hybrid swarm. It is very difficult (for me) to make sharp cuts between 'species' when there is natural interbreeding going on.

That is all based on what I knew 10 or 15 years ago. I don't know a lot about what is current in the philippenense world of taxonomy. For what it is worth, I have the same problems with chamberlainianum/primulinum (and close relatives) too (I think it is a hybrid swarm). And wilhelminae/praestans/glanduliferum. But that is the lumper in me talking. This is the kind of statement that drives taxonomists to draw pistols at 20 paces, so I'm sure somebody will violently disagree with me... I've got my fire resistant suit on.


----------



## Marco (Jun 30, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Can someone tell me what people look for in a "great" philippinense?


I don't know what makes a phil "great" cause they're all great!

Multi-florals:drool: 

I love em :smitten: they touch something fuzzy in the deep recesses of my soul oke:


----------



## Nautilus (Jul 2, 2006)

So many beautiful philippinese! :drool: :drool: :drool: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten:


----------



## Braem (Nov 19, 2006)

Littlefrog,

Of course you can lump them together. They are the same thing. The SAME plant described by two different authors. The description of laevigatum by Bateman matches EXACTLY the description of philippinense. 

Guido




littlefrog said:


> I can lump phillipinense and laevigatum together... No problems for me...
> 
> Main reason is that as far as I know (and I'm probably wrong) the major difference between the varieties is the petal stance and degree of twist. From that, I'd wager that the plant pictured at the top of this thread is really phil x laevigatum. Or, it has a substantial percentage of laevigatum in the background... Which makes it???
> 
> ...


----------



## Heather (Nov 19, 2006)

My var. (or is it type or.... ) laevigatum is in bud. I would like to hear ALL about it when it blooms and I post photos here. I have bloomed roebbelinii but not yet my philippinense.

Oh, and I'm happy to report that I learned the correct spelling of Roebbelen today. 
I'm sure you'll all be as happy as I am to know I have corrected my database.


----------

