# Phal. schilleriana purpurea 'Pink Princess' HCC/AOS



## Drorchid (Feb 1, 2010)

Last week I showed you guys our awarded Phrag. Beauport. At the same show they also awarded our Phal. schilleriana purpurea 'Pink Princess' HCC/AOS. This is a tetraploid form of shilleriana. We have taken other plants to shows in the past, but they always thought they were hybrids and would not award them, so I am glad they finally did award one. Each individual flower is 9.5 to 10 cm across.






















This brings me to a question, do you think when they judge plants that there should be different categories for 4N (tetraploid) versus 2N (diploid plants)? Most diploid schilleriana flowers will not get bigger than 5 to 6 cm, so it will be hard to compare a diploid to a tetraploid flower. Now that this plant has been awarded with close to 10 cm flowers, it will be hard for a diploid plant to get an award (if they base it on flower size).

Robert


----------



## Shiva (Feb 1, 2010)

Totally beautiful!


----------



## NYEric (Feb 1, 2010)

Interesting question; steroid testing is done to separate out users...


----------



## luvsorchids (Feb 1, 2010)

Amazing :drool::clap::drool::clap:. I've got a schilleriana just starting to bloom with close to 8 cm flowers and I thought that was big.

I'm not sure what the right answer is regarding judging, but somehow the difference between 2N and 4N should be accounted for in judging. Don't 4N plants tend to have fuller flower form as well?

Susan


----------



## slippertalker (Feb 1, 2010)

This would be difficult to do in practice. Polyploids have been with us for a long time in several genera, and while they seem to have an unfair advantage, they are often much better flowers. 

4N flowers still need to be full, well-shaped and of good color. There are poor representatives also..........

They do tend to be more robust in plant habit, spike habit and in their substance and color. On the negative side, they can have floral anomalies and can grow slow to maturity.


----------



## Jimsox (Feb 1, 2010)

oh yeah NYERIC.......that one's on the juice fo sho!!!


----------



## terryros (Feb 1, 2010)

I saw this Phal schilleriana at Orchids Limited last week and it is beautiful. Robert doesn’t ask easy questions.

I am no breeder and my orchid world (outside of a few trips to Hausermann’s) is the four greenhouses at Orchids Limited where Jerry, Jason, and Robert have been kind enough to teach me. With these limitations, my formal education does include enough genetics to get by.

I have been impressed with the number of 3N, 4N, or aneuploid beautiful large plants/flowers that are sterile. You see a great Paph or Phrag and think it would be great to breed with and hear, “It isn’t fertile, It’s a dead end.” Yes, I have bought some of these dead ends because they are showy. 

If you are trying to compete in the orchids race you can always make a cross and add in some colchicine or other agent to a flask and produce higher ploidy and maybe get a much larger/better plant/flower. Of course, this new plant may often be sterile but the hobbyist probably doesn’t care. Thoroughbred horse and show dog owners care about fertility but I guess a flower is a flower.

What type of sport are the AOS awards? Is it like a track/field competition in which any drug is allowed and men and women all compete together? Or, is it like wrestling with careful drug testing, men and women divided, and weight classes making for a more fair competition?

If we could do it, I would favor the wrestling analogy in which 2N schillerianas would compete against each other, but unfortunately we can’t easily do drug or genetic testing on plants at present and often enough we aren’t even certain about the true parents of things (either ancient or modern). That leaves us with the awards simply going to the best plants/flowers in a category, however they got made or grown. That seems to mean that the bar for Phal schilleriana is now raised to a very high level and few will probably try to jump over it. I am not innocent; I have an Orchids Limited 4N x 4N Phal schilleriana cross and I suppose I secretly hope that it will be bigger than Robert’s!

We non-breeding hobbyists seem to want the cheapest, nicest plant/flower that we can get, where ever we can get it. It is only the dwindling number of breeders who realize that a great classic Phrag or Paph, although maybe not as nice as some modern hybrids in their group, is still very valuable because of its great ability to breed.

We don’t value our orchid breeders enough; they do painstaking, long duration work with many years from fertilization to bloom and few want to pay for for this time and expertise. We will figure out how to clone Paphs and Phrags and things will become like they are with Phals and Catts. You buy a clone of a nice plant and know what you will get. There will be no surprise or anticipation. Orchids will be mass-produced all over the world, with or without virus. We will only have a small group of specialty breeders working on new things. Most growers will probably be happy.

However, while I have bought Phal and Catt clones in order to get something nice for show, for me, the excitement and anticipation of the hopeful, new cross is worth the wait and the money. There is still disappointment and dead ends, but it feels more alive. Support your local breeder!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 1, 2010)

Interesting question and discussion. I thought size was only one factor in judging, and not even the major consideration. However, whenever I've watched judges in action, if the flower isn't at least as big as an awarded one, it isn't even considered.

This schilleriana is stunning in every way!


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 1, 2010)

Drorchid said:


> This brings me to a question, do you think when they judge plants that there should be different categories for 4N (tetraploid) versus 2N (diploid plants)? Most diploid schilleriana flowers will not get bigger than 5 to 6 cm, so it will be hard to compare a diploid to a tetraploid flower. Now that this plant has been awarded with close to 10 cm flowers, it will be hard for a diploid plant to get an award (if they base it on flower size).
> 
> Robert



Would you also segregate 3N, 6N and every possible combination of mismatched or aneuploid chromosome counts? For most individual plants the chromosome count is unknown. Even for most plants that are considered 4N it is unverified.  Would you require a chromosome count before any award could be given? Done by whom? Paid for by whom? There are already people who don't want their plants judged or who don't accept awards because of the expense. How many more would avoid the judging process for this added cost and hassle? Do we really want to open this can of worms?


----------



## rdlsreno (Feb 1, 2010)

Mine is also in bud! Congrats!

Ramon


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 1, 2010)

nice display. in a perfect world it might be nice to separate out standard from polyploid, but you couldn't know, and someone would want to sneak their polyploid into the 'normal' category so it would never work probably. there is so much color on these flowers that they almost don't look like schilleriana. i've also got one in bud, but a seedling with only two


----------



## JeanLux (Feb 2, 2010)

Excellent display!!!! Congratulations!!!! 

(when I look at the small blooms of my schill. !) Jean


----------



## labskaus (Feb 2, 2010)

Very nice display on a small plant. Must be spectacular when its fully grown up!

And I've got something to look foreward to


----------



## etex (Feb 2, 2010)

Congrats!! Gorgeous blooms and plant!


----------



## Ernie (Feb 2, 2010)

This is a very nice plant with a stunning display! Is it fragrant? 

Honestly, if I were there, I would've exercised the need to have it formally identified by a taxonomic authority or the AOS task force. 

In addition to the unusuall size, color (although this variety is more heavily saturated than the type), and form for this species, the leaves aren't as dark and richly patterned as many schillerianas, but could certainly fall into the range of variation for the species- I'm not sure. When you're not sure, you should ask someone that knows, right? 

This is important in maintaining integrity in the breeding line and award system. No offense to Doc Q and the OL gang, nothing but respect from me guys!!! But like a paph spicerianum/Bruno discussion in another thread, sometimes the source of the plants mislabels on purpose plants that have a touch of something else in the lineage to give it a competetive and commercial edge. And someone has said several times that unless you grab it off the tree, you have no idea for sure what it really is. 

Can we separate diploids from polyploids from aneuploids at the judging table. No way. It's unreasonable to even consider that... unless you're volunteering to screen everyone's plants of course.  It sounds fair on paper, but I doubt the suggestion would ever leave the gate. 

Is funky-ploidy/selective breeding bad? Depends on your viewpoint. Hermann Pigors breeds to conserve the natural concept of a species. There's certainly something to be said for that. But would I buy his lab raised but jungle-looking spicerianums OR a line bred one from Hausermann's OR a "Bruno-contaminated" one from Asia? We have some of each- Hausermann's are my faves. At some point, each individual draws a line for themsleves. 

Actually, Hermann's classic example of his breeding ideas _IS_ Phal schilleriana. For a long time, 'Pink Butterfly' was the gold standard for schillies. We have that clone. It's nice for sure. But it doesn't branch as readily as a lot of schillies do and it's not fragrant (or not much). 

As for size, yes there should be improvement. But I'm not in the school that "that plant is 0.2 cm smaller than previous awards, so it's outa here." Usually the measurement folks key in on is horizontal natural spread (or vertical for tall things like sanderianums etc). Well, who cares if it's 0.2 cm smaller in NS if the petals are 20% fatter or the dorsal is wide enough to shovel snow. Size isn't always determined by the ruler- proportion also falls in the size department in my eyes. Would you rather have a Paph rothschildianum that's 35 cm in HNS and has spaghetti-width petals and narrow sepals, or a 32 cm one with fat, chunky petals and sepals? The difference in fullness and heavy "feel" of the flower is dramatic. Some say "size is only ten points"- that's true. Other say "yeah, but it's the _first_ ten". Not true IMO. Even if you give a plant zero points for size, there are 90 left- it could get an FCC (but perfection in both color and form is a toughie). 

Bottom line: Rob, you have a very nice Phal there- it deserved to be awarded. 

-Ernie


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 2, 2010)

:drool::drool::drool:WOW!!! FABULOUS! :clap::clap:


----------



## neo-guy (Feb 2, 2010)

Speaking as an AOS judge, Roberts question is a good one. Others are right that there is no way to prove that an orchid is 2n or 4n without a chromosome count, so without this knowledge, we have to judge what we see. 4n is very commonplace now with Cattleya hybrids, and we really don't make a distinction in judging.
We are now starting to see more tetraploid versions of species and I think as more get awarded, the diploid forms will no longer be considered for quality awards. This has happened with Sophronitis coccinea. When is the last time a 2n form received an award?
Although size is usually 10 points, the size of segments is also a factor in other scoring points such as form. 4n can also increase fullness and substance, and also color intensity.
We are now starting to see 4n forms of Aerangis luteo alba. It will be soon that 2n forms will no longer be awarded! Same with C. aclandiae, C. amethystoglossa, etc.

Lastly, regarding Robert's comment of judges questioning species validity, AOS judges can request that the plant be identified by an expert before an award is officially recorded.

Hope that sheds some light about the challenges of AOS judging!

Pete


----------



## slippertalker (Feb 2, 2010)

It seems that we have more than a few judges on this forum. That's great for the exchange of opinion and clarity in dealing with judging issues and good for non-judges to learn what judges are considering. I find that all opinions are to be sifted through to find the truth within, and an educated opinion is needs to be sifted thoroughly.


----------



## Drorchid (Feb 2, 2010)

Everyone made some good points!

I just brought it out there to see what other people's opinions are. I agree that it would open up a can of worms, and be too complicated if the judges sub-catogorize by ploidy level. For one it is too hard to determine the correct ploidy level during judging, and also what would you do with aneuploids?

My opinion is that when judges look at plants they should just keep in mind that they may different ploidy levels, and judge them based on that. Unfortunately size does matter, so if it there is a superb diploid with outstanding flowers next to a tetraploid with much larger flowers but not as good shaped, the judges will only see the larger flowers and probably not pull the smaller diploid plant for judging.

Also it may be OK, if due to breeding the breeders create more tetraploids, that only these will get awarded (think of the Sophronitis previously mentioned). With breeding the standards keep getting raised, and creating tetraploids is just one method of doing that.

Robert


----------



## paphioboy (Feb 3, 2010)

Fantastico...!!!


----------



## rdlsreno (Feb 3, 2010)

neo-guy said:


> Speaking as an AOS judge, Roberts question is a good one. Others are right that there is no way to prove that an orchid is 2n or 4n without a chromosome count, so without this knowledge, we have to judge what we see. 4n is very commonplace now with Cattleya hybrids, and we really don't make a distinction in judging.
> We are now starting to see more tetraploid versions of species and I think as more get awarded, the diploid forms will no longer be considered for quality awards. This has happened with Sophronitis coccinea. When is the last time a 2n form received an award?
> Although size is usually 10 points, the size of segments is also a factor in other scoring points such as form. 4n can also increase fullness and substance, and also color intensity.
> We are now starting to see 4n forms of Aerangis luteo alba. It will be soon that 2n forms will no longer be awarded! Same with C. aclandiae, C. amethystoglossa, etc.
> ...



I totally Agree!!! A judge should never screen a plant just because one think it is not what it seems to that person. The judges should judge what they see and let the taxonomist do their job and that is what the AOS rule on this.

Ramon


Ramon


----------



## Leo Schordje (Feb 3, 2010)

Robert, that is one beautiful schillerianum. 

Pete & Ernie, I agree with you guys. As to segregating polyploids for judging; not possible. Robert Q is likely the only one here, or one of a very, very few, that sits down in front of a research grade microscope and counts chromosomes. No way AOS judges could separate various ploydy counts from each other at a judging session. Virtually 99% of the growers, who make the claim that this plant or that plant is a polyploid are actually guessing. They simply do not have the chromosome count necessary to be certain. Now often a grower can make a good guess, but until one actually does the count, it is not correct to state that a plant is a particular ploidy number. Better statement would be to say, this plant is likely a 4N, rather than it IS 4N. I know, nitpicking, but it is the practical reason that it is unreasonable to expect AOS judges to separate polyploids from the diploids.


----------



## Ernie (Feb 3, 2010)

Leo,

As a fun aside, Bill Rogerson actually approached me about screening his Cattleya seedlings for ploidy. He said the person that used to do his lab work would screen them based on stomata diameter. Within a given population, he could predict with near 100% accuracy which would be polyploid (not necessarily 3N, 4N, etc). That guy retired, and Bill wants me to trian myself to do this for him so i can take his money. I think I could do it, and I have the equipment. Unfortunately, I don't have time. With this method, you'd need a 2N control or large population of mixed to compare against. 

-Ernie


----------



## Leo Schordje (Feb 3, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Leo,
> 
> As a fun aside, Bill Rogerson actually approached me about screening his Cattleya seedlings for ploidy. He said the person that used to do his lab work would screen them based on stomata diameter. Within a given population, he could predict with near 100% accuracy which would be polyploid (not necessarily 3N, 4N, etc). That guy retired, and Bill wants me to trian myself to do this for him so i can take his money. I think I could do it, and I have the equipment. Unfortunately, I don't have time. With this method, you'd need a 2N control or large population of mixed to compare against.
> 
> -Ernie



I know HP Norton also uses the guard cell measurements to identify the polyploids. If you have a grex specific reference set of measurements you can separate 2N from 3N from 4N. The measurements jump nicely with each level of ploidy. BUT you can't be certain about aneuploids, they fall inbetween. Guard cell measurements are definitely a good relatively inexpensive way to guess at ploidy number. At least with guard cell measurements it becomes an informed guess as to ploidy. You still need a decent quality disecting scope with the measurement scale built into one of the ocular lenses. They are cheaper than what you would need for chromosome counts, but still are not very cheap.


----------



## Roth (Feb 8, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Leo,
> 
> As a fun aside, Bill Rogerson actually approached me about screening his Cattleya seedlings for ploidy. He said the person that used to do his lab work would screen them based on stomata diameter. Within a given population, he could predict with near 100% accuracy which would be polyploid (not necessarily 3N, 4N, etc). That guy retired, and Bill wants me to trian myself to do this for him so i can take his money. I think I could do it, and I have the equipment. Unfortunately, I don't have time. With this method, you'd need a 2N control or large population of mixed to compare against.
> 
> -Ernie



Guard cells is of no meaning, unfortunately... I tried that and compared to hardcore chromosome counting, and it is not reliable. As for the 4n 2n etc... there are naturals 4n plants of many species around, so to mention it for judging would be quite useless...

Schilleriana, I have never seen a Philippine schilleriana like the Pink Princess, that's definitely a good 4n. 

On the other side, I have seen schilleriana from Sabah, mine are going to bloom now. They are distinctive, as some have nearly no mottling of the leaves, branching spikes, and funnier, they make real stolons, like a very large flower spike with a plant at the tip... It could well be the 2n ancester of those ones. Sabah gets a lot of species that are similar to the Philippines, but usually of much better quality. Paph philippinense, haynaldianum, schilleriana, amabilis, etc...


----------



## Ernie (Feb 8, 2010)

Sanderianum said:


> Guard cells is of no meaning, unfortunately...



Fair enough, but tell that to Bill and the guy that used to flask for him. He was nearly 100% in IDing 2n's versus polyploids. I have not done it, but I've seen Bill's plants and do not doubt the results of his ploidy sorting. Maybe it's easier/more reliable for the Cattleya alliance (which Bill grows)? Maybe he trashed the ones he wasn't sure about.  

-Ernie


----------

