# paph species no 2 ???



## albert (Nov 9, 2008)

Its me again. Lost lable - could anybody identify it pls. Many Thanks.
Albert


----------



## Roy (Nov 9, 2008)

Thats either hirsutissimum or esquirolei also.


----------



## albert (Nov 9, 2008)

Roy, i can not agree on this, its a completely different flower.
Albert


----------



## Rick (Nov 9, 2008)

I agree with Roy. It's within the variation of hirsutisimum.

Splitting between var esquirolei and the nominal hirsutisimum is a bit of a size difference and less hair on the stem and ovary.


----------



## rdlsreno (Nov 10, 2008)

Paph. chiwuanum.

Ramon


----------



## JeanLux (Nov 10, 2008)

rdlsreno said:


> Paph. chiwuanum.
> 
> Ramon



had the same thought Ramon! here a pict. of mine from 2007. Jean


----------



## Roy (Nov 10, 2008)

Could be but is still only a variety of hirsutissimum Tang & Wang, PJ Cribb. or esquirolei v Chiwuanum Braem & Chiron.
From Kew list of Monocots.


----------



## Lance Birk (Nov 10, 2008)

Neither flower is fully open so quality comparisons cannot be made.

I'd go with Roy, ...... but I wonder if each could be a crosse between the two.

Plants and flowers of P. hirsutissimum and P. esquirolei are easily distinguishable.


----------



## SlipperKing (Nov 10, 2008)

Lance Birk said:


> Neither flower is fully open so quality comparisons cannot be made.
> 
> I'd go with Roy, ...... but I wonder if each could be a crosse between the two.
> 
> Plants and flowers of P. hirsutissimum and P. esquirolei are easily distinguishable.


Until someone crosses the two!


----------



## Hien (Nov 10, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Until someone crosses the two!



These flowers are answers to those who love to cross varieties and confuse us


----------



## NYEric (Nov 10, 2008)

Yes, select seedling of Paph newspeciesforsuckers now available for only $400,000! :evil:


----------



## Roy (Nov 11, 2008)

NYEric said:


> Yes, select seedling of Paph newspeciesforsuckers now available for only $400,000! :evil:



:rollhappy: Now your with it. Phrag bessandroianum.


----------



## Roy (Nov 11, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Until someone crosses the two!



Fair chance its what we are buying now.


----------



## Roy (Nov 11, 2008)

Hien said:


> These flowers are answers to those who love to cross varieties and confuse us



Just another addition to a subject that is widely discused now.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Nov 11, 2008)

Lance
What is your feeling? I have individual plants with lots of long hairs on the ovary, some with smooth, hairless ovaries, and some with several levels of in-between in terms of hairs on the ovary. I thought this trait was the key to distinguishing hirsustissimum from esquirolei? If that is the key trait - there seems to be no bright line between the two species. One big, widespread, variable swarm of intergrades?

With the 20 to 26 months required to mature seed pods on this group, the probably not that many hybrids forms out there. I think most of the ones being passed around these days are divisions from the days when these were imported by the bushel load. I know there are some hybrid plants out there, I have seen a the occasional seedling offering, but most for sale most often are divisions of collected plants. 

Your thoughts? 
Leo


----------



## Lance Birk (Nov 11, 2008)

Let's forget feelings, let's discuss facts. What we know is that P. hirsutissimum is a cool growing species with short stems that mostly stay in the foliage. It has much broader, shorter leaves than those of P. esquirolei and they are not as deeply channeled, the acute tips of which rarely are one-toothed. It blooms in mid to late winter.

P. esquirolei grows at lower elevations and likes more warmth, day and night. Stems are well above the foliage. Leaves are long and thin (somewhat thicker than P. hirsutissimum), deeply channeled with acute, one-toothed tips. blooms March to May.

The second species has long hairs on the stem, ovary and bracts but not as long or numerous as those of the first species. I don't know what taxonomist would limit identification to a single characteristic. 

The ranges of each sometimes overlap, even flowers have been seen during the same time period, however the elevation differences are probably the reason we have such distinct populations rather than piles and piles of muddy mixes. (Supports my theory of species-specific pollinators).

You bring up an interesting point, one that I may have overlooked. For the past two years I have left selfed seed pods on my P. hirsutissimum for just over 12 months, and have had no seeds after cutting open the pods. Rands and I each made hirsutissimum crosses years ago, and we found that 12 months (rather than the normal 6-7) was just about right. I have suspected self-sterility with my clone, perhaps I have cut them too soon. .......on the other hand, there were NO seeds in either of my two pods. Oh well! This year I'll leave my pod on for much longer. Thanks for the clue.

As far as available plants on the market, you (we) will never know the source for certain. How many orchid growers do you know who make a few seed pods, grow a few plants and then take a bunch of extras to the raffle table? Where do these plants wind up? Are all hybrids registered? How do YOU know most of these plants are divisions of collected plants? How many growers do you suppose still have all the same plants after 5 or 6 years? It's been nearly 20 years since the ban. ....... And so on and so on.

......... when you get all the answers, let us all know.... Meanwhile, we all need to do our best at culturing our plants, and enjoy them for whatever the label says they are.


----------



## Roy (Nov 12, 2008)

Lance, I asked a question of an orchid person some time ago about pod time for hirsutissimum. He also referred the question to another grower in Germany well experienced in breeding with hirsutissimum and the replay was 11 - 14 months to mature the seeds in the pod. He doesn't say if that is the minimum time required for Green pod culture but that is what my understanding is. Dry seed from another source is apprx' 14 months, dependant on growing conditions. Pod observation from 12 months.


----------



## Corbin (Nov 12, 2008)

Other than a wild collected plant is there such a thing as a "true" species for sale on the market? Look at any species and compare photos of various ones being sold by different vendors and you can get to wondering real quick which is really the species. I understand there is natural variation but in some cases one would have to think that there is extremely wide variation for all the ones being offered to be a real "species."


----------



## emydura (Nov 12, 2008)

Harold Koopowitz says 15-18 months for hirsutissimum and 6-9 months for esquirolei.

David


----------



## Roy (Nov 12, 2008)

Corbin said:


> Other than a wild collected plant is there such a thing as a "true" species for sale on the market? Look at any species and compare photos of various ones being sold by different vendors and you can get to wondering real quick which is really the species. I understand there is natural variation but in some cases one would have to think that there is extremely wide variation for all the ones being offered to be a real "species."



Ed, you hit the nail on the head. IMO because of the 'outcrossing' done with, as discussed at length, philippinense and the chamberlainianum, primulinum, moquettianum, glaucophyllum lines, to get an 'uncorrupted' strain of a species of these plants would be a stroke of luck at best unless the hybridist has a wild collected plant that was selfed. At this point in time I would think that paphs such as tigrinum, hangianum, armeniacum, argus, fairrieanum, sukhakulii and a number of others would probably be ok as there are as far as I know, no other plants discovered that could be cross bred with them that doesn't alter the 'type shape and description' save the minor variations that do occur.


----------



## Heather (Nov 12, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Until someone crosses the two!



And here we go again!


----------



## Roy (Nov 12, 2008)

Heather, there is no need to get concerned, its already been done by accident or intent long ago.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Nov 12, 2008)

On the pod maturation times, I like working with fully ripe dry seed. A bit more inconvenient in handling, BUT - especially with NON-Paphs, a better way to end the virus transmission. With green pod there is always the risk of transmitting virus to the new seedlings. (especially Phals, Cymbidiums and Catts)

I have kept some notes, and it took my hirsustissimum 24 months to go to ripe dry seed. Paph tigrinum also takes 24 months to go to dry seed.


----------



## Rick (Nov 15, 2008)

Roy said:


> to get an 'uncorrupted' strain of a species of these plants would be a stroke of luck at best unless the hybridist has a wild collected plant that was selfed.



Why are we concerned with 'uncorrupted 'strains of species rather than understanding the normal variation of the species?

There would be no point in judging species if everything was a xerox copy of the original collected plant, and something inbred from continuous selfing has no value in the conservation arena. So you are left with a stamp collection with no practical value.


----------



## biothanasis (Nov 15, 2008)

emydura said:


> Harold Koopowitz says 15-18 months for hirsutissimum and 6-9 months for esquirolei.
> 
> David



Hello David!!! Welcome!


----------



## Corbin (Nov 15, 2008)

Rick said:


> Why are we concerned with 'uncorrupted 'strains of species rather than understanding the normal variation of the species?
> 
> There would be no point in judging species if everything was a xerox copy of the original collected plant, and something inbred from continuous selfing has no value in the conservation arena. So you are left with a stamp collection with no practical value.



I can think of a couple; If you start breeding for some particular 
"improvement" and lose the original strain but then run into a dead end with the breeding you cannot get back to the beginning to try another approach. Conservation is about conserving both the diversity and the individual. Your argument seems to be let the polar bears and grizzly bears go the way of the dodo bird because we have plenty of other different kind of bears.


----------



## Rick (Nov 16, 2008)

Corbin said:


> I can think of a couple; If you start breeding for some particular
> "improvement" and lose the original strain but then run into a dead end with the breeding you cannot get back to the beginning to try another approach. Conservation is about conserving both the diversity and the individual. Your argument seems to be let the polar bears and grizzly bears go the way of the dodo bird because we have plenty of other different kind of bears.




We are debating strains or varieties not species, and it was not my contention that we should only breed within the strain (it was Roy's). However using the mammal example of conservation by trying to breed only within the strain, it has been demonstrated that the inbreeding depression either produces genetically crippled individuals, or a population that is incapable of adapting to changes or challenges from the environment. Subsequently, the xerox copies in captivity can only survive in a captive environment even if they do not become genetically crippled.

A recent example of this is the Florida panther which had lost so much of its population that it had effectively become self sterile. A handful of closely related female panthers from Texas (same species, different population (strain)) were introduced into Florida, and the population of panthers in Florida is now rebounding.

If we had been adhering to Roy's contention of keeping the strains "pure" the Florida strain would continue to spiral into extinction. It may be arguable that we now have illicit "hybrids" of two strains of panthers loose in Florida now, but we now have a growing healthy population of the panther species in Florida. From working in zoos, I am aware of several similar projects (including resurrecting of an extinct strain of Galapagos tortoise) that went through a similar strategy. 

Going to a plant example, we can look at the work being done with the American Chestnut, which for the most part has been wiped out by a fungal blight. There is a program underway to breed the Chinese chestnut (resistant to blight) into what remains of the American Chestnut, and then breed back until the percentage of AC is high again, but still infer the blight resistance. I guess it is arguable that the new chestnut will not be a "true" American chestnut, but for many forest dwellers it will be close enough.


----------



## Roy (Nov 16, 2008)

Rick, I think you miss quote me. What I was suggesting is that over the years, different similar looking species have been cross bred and this is the corruption of which I speak. The plants I quoted like P.tigrinum, to my knowledge, we don't have a multitude of varieties ex' the alba forum. Thus, initial selfings or outcrossing between different wild collected plants keeps the strain somewhat pure. The outcrossings should/will keep the strain as is but will & has created better forms of the species. The hirsutissimum x esquirolei situation I venture to say has been happening for years and this is why we are getting the variations in shape, color & hairs stem length etc we see. Basically, the more variations of one one particular species, the more the hybridist has to work with to modify the plant and flower yet maintaining the same name. To fit with your example of the Chestnut.


----------



## Rick (Nov 17, 2008)

Roy said:


> What I was suggesting is that over the years, different similar looking species have been cross bred and this is the corruption of which The hirsutissimum x esquirolei situation I venture to say has been happening for years and this is why we are getting the variations in shape, color & hairs stem length etc we see.



From day to day and person to person you could get a different answer as to whether hirsutissimum and esquirolei are different species, varieties, or just upland and lowland forms of the same species. At this time I wouldn't be convinced of any significant differences without the results of a good pollinator specificity study. But there are other species pairs that probably warrant more considerable debate.


----------



## Corbin (Nov 18, 2008)

Rick said:


> We are debating strains or varieties not species,



I realize that Rick I was just trying to make the point obvious. I agree that if you are just breeding from a single plant and continuously selfing it you are going to lose. That is why zoos that are trying to preserve a species are always trying to enlarge their breeding program by breeding with other animals that are known to have a different genetic background. But you can do the same thing with a "strain" so long as you do not limit yourself to a single plant and its offspring. Surly the definition of strain means more that a single plant and its offspring.


----------



## SlipperKing (Nov 18, 2008)

Corbin said:


> Surly the definition of strain means more that a single plant and its offspring.


You are correct in your thinking Ed. A strain is more then one. A single plant with an unusal trait is called a "cultivar" or sometimes a "clone", as in, single clone.


----------



## Rick (Nov 18, 2008)

Corbin said:


> I realize that Rick I was just trying to make the point obvious. I agree that if you are just breeding from a single plant and continuously selfing it you are going to lose. That is why zoos that are trying to preserve a species are always trying to enlarge their breeding program by breeding with other animals that are known to have a different genetic background. But you can do the same thing with a "strain" so long as you do not limit yourself to a single plant and its offspring. Surly the definition of strain means more that a single plant and its offspring.



That is true, but the reality of getting enough VERIFIABLE material from a single population that can be shared around and maintained over time really limits options, and record keeping appears to be worthless. The exact localities of much of the collected material is erroneous to fraudulent in many cases, and it appears that we keep trying to backtrack the collection local identity by visual ID of the flower, or saying its this variety or that variety based on physical appearance of a flower with little or no understanding of the natural phenotypic (or genotypic) variation of the species.

I worked on several SSP programs when I worked in zoos, so I can see the differences between what the orchid hobby does versus what is needed for a good conservation based breeding program. But in many ways the cat is not only out of the bag, but also dead and burried, since orchid species have been moving through breeders hands for a 100+ years now. That's a long time to screw up allot of records which is compounded by frequent taxonomic reclassification of the known species too.


----------

