# Guess the species Game



## SlipperKing (Apr 11, 2008)

There's not many in this group. This should be easy.


----------



## Greenpaph (Apr 11, 2008)

druryi?


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 11, 2008)

That would be nice to have a multi flowered druryi but no


----------



## Candace (Apr 11, 2008)

I'll go with liemianum.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 11, 2008)

No name attached to photo this time! I guess Phrag besseae!


----------



## Per (Apr 11, 2008)

glaucophyllum?


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 11, 2008)

Candace=No
Eric= lesson learned
Per= close


----------



## Ernie (Apr 11, 2008)

Paph. primulinum var purpurescens.

How can glaucophyllum be closer than liemianum? 

-Ernie


----------



## Ernie (Apr 11, 2008)

Second guess is Paph. victoria-regina (chamberlainianum) but ours never have that deep color on the inflorescence. The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum? kalinae and victoria-mariae aren't seen very often in collections, so I doubt it's either of these two. 

-Ernie


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 11, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Second guess is Paph. victoria-regina (chamberlainianum) but ours never have that deep color on the inflorescence. The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum? kalinae and victoria-mariae aren't seen very often in collections, so I doubt it's either of these two.
> 
> -Ernie


Ernie, I quess you're going to name all of them until you hit the right one!oke:
"The bud is too pointy IMO to be moquettianum?" This what the tag says it is. We'll see who is right, you or the tag I thought it's awfully dark color for moquettianum myself. Here is the plant


----------



## Heather (Apr 11, 2008)

I vote for moquet.


----------



## Mrs. Paph (Apr 11, 2008)

I recently got a moq (or it better be anyway!  ) in bud and it doesn't have nearly that much purple pigment at the base/underside of the leaves, lots of purple hairs on the spike/buds though...the buds are also less 'pointy' like Ernie said. Hopefully we both have what we expected!  I haven't started taking pics yet, but I will soon leading up to the bloom opening. I've wanted a moq for so long!!!


----------



## rdlsreno (Apr 12, 2008)

I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.

Ramon

Paph. glaucophylum var.?





Plant


----------



## Rick (Apr 12, 2008)

rdlsreno said:


> I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.
> 
> Ramon
> 
> Paph. glaucophylum var.?



Ramon I have a moquettianum similar to yours. I purchased it as glaucophylum from Andy's, but post flowering it was obvious that it was not a glaucophylum. There is allot of natural variation in moquettianum that range from almost stripes in the dorsal to just scattered fine spots. Based on just color differences (and even geography) I probably wouldn't have considered these as different species, but apparently there is a chromosome count difference between the two, which appears to warrant more taxonomic separation. Also I tend to grow my moquettianum warmer and brighter than many folks, and as I've eased the plant into darker conditions the plant and flower is getting bigger.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 12, 2008)

We'll see when it opens then SlipperKing. Ramon, look at the many small dimples on your glaucophyllum's dorsal sepal... that is a moquettianum trait. The leaves certainly look glaucous, but not quite as much as the straight species. Anyway, neat... I might be alone, but I find this section fascinating.  In breeding, glaucophyllum lends a ton of red, whereas "the same hybrid" made by subbing in the other cochlos, usually moq gives the least (other than prim flavum that is). Moq gives flower size, plant size, and a fairly clean dorsal with dimples. 

-Steve Jobs (Ernie)


----------



## @[email protected] (Apr 12, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Here is the plant





The hairy margin (is it thrue ?) on leaves and the dark purple central line under leaves looks like chamberlainianum var liemianum.
not easy to know !


----------



## Ernie (Apr 12, 2008)

True Paph liemianum (accepted as a valid species by RHS, and rightfully so IMO) has cilia along the entire leaf margin, not just at the base. Also, liemianum has darker leaves with dark red-brown tiger-like stripes on the underside as opposed to the basal flush of red-brown seen here. The red-brown markings also appear on the bracts. 

-Ernie


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 12, 2008)

rdlsreno said:


> I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.
> 
> Ramon
> 
> Paph. glaucophylum var.?



Ramon and all others,
Your plant/flower brings up all kinds of feelings in me. This maybe another case of "muddying up" the species gene pool. We have had other threads on this topic, delenatii (normal colored form vs. vinicolors), hookerae vs. volonteanum, hirsutis. vs. esquirolei and of course the Cochlos. It bugs me that breeders make these crosses between closely related species and you end up with this jumbled mess with lost tags, poor record keeping or whatever. Then some Taxo dude comes along and says"this is all one species". "Can't you see, this is normal variation within the group". When this "intermediate" group of plants have traits of both parent species is nothing more then a hybridizer mess. I'm not saying all people who hybridize are unprofessional about their work but it starts there by making these crosses. The whole seller that buys can add to the problem with bad records and/or lost tags. Then the retailer can compound the issue with more of the same. There is one local retailer I'll never buy from again. Too many times they have Paphs with clearly "miss labelled" tags in the pots.
Let me tell you all a story about two plants that look exactly like Ramon's pictured here,flowers and growths. A friend of mine took a trip back in the mid to late 90's to Calif. He hooked up with a number of Paph folks out that way and they toured a lot of different orchid firms. Anyway, he got back to Houston with two Paphs and they where labelled "Paph victoria regina", both in spike. I suggested we cross the two and make the next generation. When they flowered, we were both shooked to see this unusaul combination. At the same time there was a disscusion going a round in the Paph world over the true naming of victoria regina vs. chamberlainianum. So with this plant in my hand, I thought this is it! Because we both had plants labelled chamberlainianum and they looked nothing like these plants! Chamberlainianums were huge, stiff leaved, green plants with totally different flowers and bloom habits. Our plants labelled victoria regina were smaller, blue-green with a thin maroon color to the edge of the leaves and different flower/ bloom habit. I thought I knew something that the experts missed! That chamber and victora were two different plants and not merely the same plant with two names.
Well to make this long story longer! I grew out the cross we had made and sold compots to people labelled as "Paph victoria regina". It was a mistake! I came to find out later at one of our shows these two plants were fakes. I pointed the plant out to a long time friend, Norito Hasegawa. He told me the plant was a cross that Terry Root had make between moquettieanum and glaucophyllum and that the plants were misslabelled.
Now you can see why I have problems with these same "close species crosses. It started from the hybridization and I compounded the problem

My plant may indeed turnout to be one of these "hybrid" species coming back to haunt me!:sob:


----------



## Roy (Apr 13, 2008)

SlipperKing, you have expressed words about these plants which is totally correct and is a pleasure to read. Any comments regarding " normal variation " in these plants have to be in doubt. Not wishing to upset anyone but the problem, as you have experienced, is as common as fresh air. For years now, pics of supposed species of the Cochlos have been shown on the net or catalogs that are far from the known description of the species named. Even the plants exhibit differences. I'm not saying that variations don't occur but the variations are just too great, there has to be another species in there. The biggest problem occurs when growers / hybridists refuse to recognise the errors and correct them before they get out of control and growers like yourself go through what you did. This problem has been occuring for the last 30 years that I know of and have experienced.
Its too late to do much now as this family of paphs is so corrupt it probably will never be corrected.


----------



## Rick (Apr 13, 2008)

I agree with both Roy and Rick H that indiscriminate breeding puts allot of seed grown plants on the benches that are a mess in terms of representing "true" species. But I've seen in situ photos of many "species" that demonstrate fantastic variation. I also suspect that many of the early collected plants were select and prime examples of what the collectors thought of as the "best example" of that particular species (which would inherently reduce the real population variation that we would experience).

Take a walk in the woods sometime. I've seen variations in Jack in the Pulpit within a 1/4 acre of forest that go way beyond the variation we are looking at between the standard moquet vs glauc. A hike in Fiery Gizzard, TN will yield incredible variation in Cyp. acule to which a taxonomist working with pressed specimens in a lab would be hard pressed to call them the same species. Some of the recent in situ work with slippers in Vietnam, and cattleyas in Brazil demonstrate incredible variation that just about makes taxonomy by standard cladistics useless. 

I'm not trying to get breeders off the hook, and collectors are just as palpable for not appropriately documenting collection sites. But at this point trying to ID similar paph species and variants by picture ID is a pretty useless exercise without some DNA info to go with it.


----------



## rdlsreno (Apr 13, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Ramon and all others,
> Your plant/flower brings up all kinds of feelings in me. This maybe another case of "muddying up" the species gene pool. We have had other threads on this topic, delenatii (normal colored form vs. vinicolors), hookerae vs. volonteanum, hirsutis. vs. esquirolei and of course the Cochlos. It bugs me that breeders make these crosses between closely related species and you end up with this jumbled mess with lost tags, poor record keeping or whatever. Then some Taxo dude comes along and says"this is all one species". "Can't you see, this is normal variation within the group". When this "intermediate" group of plants have traits of both parent species is nothing more then a hybridizer mess. I'm not saying all people who hybridize are unprofessional about their work but it starts there by making these crosses. The whole seller that buys can add to the problem with bad records and/or lost tags. Then the retailer can compound the issue with more of the same. There is one local retailer I'll never buy from again. Too many times they have Paphs with clearly "miss labelled" tags in the pots.
> Let me tell you all a story about two plants that look exactly like Ramon's pictured here,flowers and growths. A friend of mine took a trip back in the mid to late 90's to Calif. He hooked up with a number of Paph folks out that way and they toured a lot of different orchid firms. Anyway, he got back to Houston with two Paphs and they where labelled "Paph victoria regina", both in spike. I suggested we cross the two and make the next generation. When they flowered, we were both shooked to see this unusaul combination. At the same time there was a disscusion going a round in the Paph world over the true naming of victoria regina vs. chamberlainianum. So with this plant in my hand, I thought this is it! Because we both had plants labelled chamberlainianum and they looked nothing like these plants! Chamberlainianums were huge, stiff leaved, green plants with totally different flowers and bloom habits. Our plants labelled victoria regina were smaller, blue-green with a thin maroon color to the edge of the leaves and different flower/ bloom habit. I thought I knew something that the experts missed! That chamber and victora were two different plants and not merely the same plant with two names.
> Well to make this long story longer! I grew out the cross we had made and sold compots to people labelled as "Paph victoria regina". It was a mistake! I came to find out later at one of our shows these two plants were fakes. I pointed the plant out to a long time friend, Norito Hasegawa. He told me the plant was a cross that Terry Root had make between moquettieanum and glaucophyllum and that the plants were misslabelled.
> ...



Don't be up set. The bottom line is I like the plant and I keeping it.

Ramon


----------



## Rick (Apr 13, 2008)

That's what its all about anyway Ramon.

BTW. For anyone with Lance Birk's book, on page 266 there is an in situ photo of P. liemianum. Within the field of a single photo there are plants with solid colored leaves, and plants with tessellated leaves. Only one of the four plants in the photo looks like the one in Cribbs book (page 204). None of the plants in Birk's book are in flower, so who knows, but that's a lot of Paph. diversity in about 10 square ft. by any measure.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 13, 2008)

Rick said:


> That's what its all about anyway Ramon.
> 
> BTW. For anyone with Lance Birk's book, on page 266 there is an in situ photo of P. liemianum. Within the field of a single photo there are plants with solid colored leaves, and plants with tessellated leaves. Only one of the four plants in the photo looks like the one in Cribbs book (page 204). None of the plants in Birk's book are in flower, so who knows, but that's a lot of Paph. diversity in about 10 square ft. by any measure.



Yes agreed re: Birk reference, but all appear to have the red-brown stripes of spots on the underside of the leaves (except the one on the very left which isn't showing us it's undersides.  ) No other cochlos have that. 

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Apr 13, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Yes agreed re: Birk reference, but all appear to have the red-brown stripes of spots on the underside of the leaves (except the one on the very left which isn't showing us it's undersides.  ) No other cochlos have that.
> 
> -Ernie



Now keeping Lance's picture reference in mind, check out Matt Gore's post on his imported leimianums from a few months ago, and we have a rerun of that post now with moquettianumoke:


----------



## myxodex (Apr 14, 2008)

I really like Ramon's flower ... nice strong colours ... whatever it's inheritance !

I also like to agree with Rick about species variation ... nature itself continues to "muddy the waters" all the time ... species survive as gene pools / populations and without genetic diversity species become less adaptable to enviromental changes. Flower structure and colour are probably under somewhat less selective pressure than, for example, genes involved in disease resistance and mycorrhizal interactions. It is also likely, given the prevalence of natural hybrids, that some species are in fact the result of ancient hybridizations. Nature selects for fecundity .... and doesn't give a fig about our pre-concieved notions of "purity".

On the otherhand ... I DO like to know what I'm buying !!!

Tim


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 14, 2008)

Thanks Ramon, I do feel better! And BTW I do like your plant/flower. I just would not be quick to call it "glaucophyllum var. ?" until I research the plant and found solid evidence to confirm yes or no.
My post was a very narrow topic of man's intentional or un-intentional interference with God's or mother nature's gene pool. I have no problems with the genetic diversity that has been given to us to enjoy from a higher power. BTW, all the orchids we enjoy came to us without names. Like the title of one of Bob Dylan's songs "Man gave names to all the animals" (and plants!) So let's call a spade a spade and not lost the tag:wink:


----------



## NYEric (Apr 14, 2008)

So is it Phrag besseae!? :crazy: What do I win!?


----------



## rdlsreno (Apr 14, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Thanks Ramon, I do feel better! And BTW I do like your plant/flower. I just would not be quick to call it "glaucophyllum var. ?" until I research the plant and found solid evidence to confirm yes or no.
> My post was a very narrow topic of man's intentional or un-intentional interference with God's or mother nature's gene pool. I have no problems with the genetic diversity that has been given to us to enjoy from a higher power. BTW, all the orchids we enjoy came to us without names. Like the title of one of Bob Dylan's songs "Man gave names to all the animals" (and plants!) So let's call a spade a spade and not lost the tag:wink:



Exactly!!!


Ramon


----------



## Rick (Apr 14, 2008)

NYEric said:


> So is it Phrag besseae!? :crazy: What do I win!?



A BIG FAT ONEoke:oke:oke:


----------



## Mrs. Paph (Apr 14, 2008)

Weeelllll....I'm not even gonna touch the part of the topic on breeding, but, I just wanted to say that now that I look again, my moq is looking much more similar to yours (inflorescence-wise, the leaves didn't grow purple veins overnight:rollhappy. It's just starting to pop at the seams, giving it a pointier look to the bud. I'll post any other pics elsewhere so I don't take your thread, but here's a pic of mine in bud for comparison.


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 15, 2008)

Very nice Miss Paphio! I don't have any issues with you or others adding pics to this thread. I really welcome new input, I benefit greatly as a paphio grower:clap: That's what it's all about. 
When I get another chance to snap pics, I'll post another moq spike that I know is moq Xmoq because I made the cross. It looks like yours but not as far as long as yours.


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 16, 2008)

OK, this is another moquettieanum spiking and it should look more typical for the species. It a clonal cross of 'Doc's' X 'Pink Coral'. Doc's is an old clone from Doc Emerson and Pink Coral is an old AM plant awarded as chamberlianianum originally.




sorry about the picture size, can't seem to edit at work. Must be a firewall issue


----------



## Mrs. Paph (Apr 18, 2008)

Well, in that case, I'll race you to open? :rollhappy: I'm surprised at how fast this has popped up! (recent 1st ever ebay plant purchase, hopefully a good purchase lol, bud was just showing between the leaves when it arrived in March, so I can claim doing something right on it's progress anyway, right?) Here's the update today - Very pink and very hairy! It's not quite as 'bubble gum' pink as the pic looks, more toward maroon pink - but for a quick update I wasn't in the mood to look into color/lighting settings on the camera. May have to break out the tripod for another pic of those crazy hairs though!




 So far I'm thinking it was a good purchase! Ebay just makes me nervous I guess so I'm anxious for this one to open.


----------



## Mrs. Paph (Apr 23, 2008)

And here we go, it's open! It may open just a tiny bit more and get a little yellower in the dorsal, but I think it's set the twists in the petals and such (I need an aerial shot of that later, they ended up twisted just so in a view from the top) I'm really quite pleased with it! The color is pretty much on in this pic, and no blur from the breeze outside, so this'll do for now




I bought it as P. moq. - Awoo x Erwin Lee, so as far as my non-coch expertise is concerned, it is, and it's up to my standards for enjoyment! It's a first bloom, 3.25" natural spread, 2.5" tall, petals .5" wide at the base bloom I've always wanted one for the pink pouch and sunny yellow, so though I'd never ditch it for being less than perfect or if it's ID wasn't certain, I'm interested in opinions on it from those more familiar w/ the sp. just for curiousity/comparison sake! 
Has that first (hopefully) moq opened yet Slipperking?


----------



## Ernie (Apr 24, 2008)

Looks like a bonafide moquettianum to me FWIW. Petals are nice and wide and well-held too. A keeper. 

-Ernie


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 24, 2008)

Well Miss Paphio I love your moq! I agree with all of Ernie's comments plus the wide dorsal overlapping the petals is what I'm looking for in a good one. You Got It! We'll have to wait a bit longer for my flower unfortuntely, the bud decided to fall off a day ago I did cheat and peeled the the bud open to get a look and it did appear to be a moq. The dorsal didn't seem to be as heavly spotted as yours but we'll wait and see.

Ernie, I have a primulium var. purpurescens that has heavy purple coloring at the base and having a pattern to it. Not like lieminaum or any other cochio. Any comments?


----------



## Ernie (Apr 24, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Ernie, I have a primulium var. purpurescens that has heavy purple coloring at the base and having a pattern to it. Not like lieminaum or any other cochio. Any comments?



Lets see. Yeah, prim pur does have a heavy red flush at the plant base. 

-Ernie


----------



## rdlsreno (Apr 24, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Looks like a bonafide moquettianum to me FWIW. Petals are nice and wide and well-held too. A keeper.
> 
> -Ernie



I agree!!!!


Ramon


----------



## SlipperFan (Apr 24, 2008)

Very nice moquettianum!


----------



## Rick (Apr 24, 2008)

rdlsreno said:


> I agree!!!!
> 
> 
> Ramon



Classic:clap:


----------



## Rick (Apr 27, 2008)

rdlsreno said:


> I thing it is the glaucophyllum that is going around as a species but could be a variety or a natural hybrid of with moquettianum. I bought a plant as glaucophyllum but the flower where a little bigger than a glaucophyllum but smaller than a moquettianum. it has a the coloration is intermediate between the two notice the dorsal sepal which is moquettianum influenced. I am attaching a photo of the plant which is similar to yours. This is just my opinion and it still may be a variety of glaucophyllum.
> 
> Ramon
> 
> ...



Check out the picture of "var. moquettianum" in Cash's book (first printing 1991). Does anyone know the origin of that plant. It's a dead ringer for the one that Ramon flowered and the type that Andy's was selling in early to mid 2000's. The "moquettianum" in the OD Paph checklist Vol 64 (2000) shows an intermediate flower with less dense spotting, but the spots arranged in stripes.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2008)

Cash's slipper book is very poor for IDs IMO. 

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Apr 27, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Cash's slipper book is very poor for IDs IMO.
> 
> -Ernie



Is that because of poor photo quality or undocumented plants being photographed? Which is why I question the source of the plant in the photo representing moquettianum.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2008)

I remember there being lots of species misidentified in the captions. 

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Apr 27, 2008)

Ernie said:


> I remember there being lots of species misidentified in the captions.
> 
> -Ernie



Given how close the flower in Cash's book looks like Ramon's it would seem that the question of the "true" identity" of moquetianum was just as debatable prior to 1991 as it is now.:clap:

Do you think its possible that todays standard for moquetianum has evolved by human psychology to only except the most extreme forms of it (largest clones with only sparse and total random spots) to make it more acceptable as a truly different variety? 

In situ photos of paphs are rarer than the paphs themselves, and since sites are so expensive and difficult to get to, there is very little documentation of the natural variation of the species. We generally only see snapshots of isolated populations. So when a truly unique clone of a species makes it into cultivation we breed the heck out of it and make it the new standard for the species. When something a bit different comes along (that would otherwise challenge the mental box we've constructed for that species) then our first assumption is hybrid, even if it's a documented jungle collected plant.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2008)

Rick,

I'll have to find a copy of Cash's book to refresh my memory before continuing. I understand what you mean though. 

Back to Leo's discussion. I reviewed some of the details (ie. Cribb v Braem) and the story in Braem and Chiron, 2003 is a pretty clearly laid out summary. However, I disagree with Braem that it is acceptable that victoria-regina is tossed out because the plants disappeared (inferred that they died in transport?). My point of contention is that it was a commercial firm throwing the names out there. Were they trying to separate the "healthier" population from the ones that croaked so clients wouldn't be weary? Regardless of how great an orchidist the collector was, it was in his best interest to bend the truth to protect his source, yes? There are tons of stories of firms changing the details to be the only ones with a species. Even modern day firms change names or use the less-heard name for a fairly common species- rare equals valuable. Were/are victoria-regina and chamberlainianum really different species? We'll never know and it is unfair for us to infer. Using what info is provided and not drawing any conclusions or making any assumptions, v-r takes priority IMO. The greatest tool of a Hennigian Phylogeneticist is Occam's razor, all else being equal, the simplest answer is the correct one. Parsimony rules Ernie's world. Vive Willi! All you other folks are Liklihoodists living in a world of assumptions and should be punished.  Sorry, it's getting late.  

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Apr 27, 2008)

Aren't orchids great as an inspirational tool for human philosophy:evil:


----------



## SlipperKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Rick I have to agree with Ernie in that Cash's book really does suck as far as photography and positive ID. Another photo of two cochlo's beside each other claims one flower to be victoria reginae and the other as glauco. To me they look the same, glaucophyllums (even thou the left flower has a bad glare on the dorsal)

Rick H


----------



## Rick (Apr 28, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Rick I have to agree with Ernie in that Cash's book really does suck as far as photography and positive ID. Another photo of two cochlo's beside each other claims one flower to be victoria reginae and the other as glauco. To me they look the same, glaucophyllums (even thou the left flower has a bad glare on the dorsal)
> 
> Rick H



I know which photo you are refering and it does suck, but that is irrelevant to comparing the pic of the photo labled as moquettianum to Ramon's flower. The photo labeled as var. moquettianum is very clear, and looks very much like Ramons flower. I don't know the source of that plant any more than most of the moquettianums I see for sale, but given the date that photo was put into print (1991) it would seem that the standard by which moquettianums have been described from has been contentious for many years. Also I mentioned a pic from the 2000 OD paph checklist by Koopowitz that has a more intermediate moquettianum with spots laid out in stipes. I don't know the source of that plant either. So is there such a thing as a "true" moquettianum in trade in the US? Is the standard of sparse random spotting considered the "true" var. simply because we can't acount for the variation in the species and the lack of proper collection data, so we only accept the most extreme form in hand as the only true form. If some one produces a flower with no spots at all, will that supplant all the spotted forms as the true form, and all spotted forms will be considered as hybrids (illicit or otherwise) at that point?

This may be a job only for cytology and DNA testing.

Try this one http://www.ladyslipper.com/0527-04.htm. And this one http://www.orchidweb.com/orchidofweek.aspx?id=595

Maybe Bob and Jerry can give us the sources of these.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 12, 2008)

*P moquettianum 'Doc's X 'Pink coral'*

I kicked started this thread again because I said I would post a pic of this moquettianum cross I made and here it is. It ain't anything special but I did grow it from seed and it being father's day coming up, I'm a little prideful P moquettianum 'Fat Lip'


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 12, 2008)

Rick said:


> I know which photo you are refering and it does suck, but that is irrelevant to comparing the pic of the photo labled as moquettianum to Ramon's flower. The photo labeled as var. moquettianum is very clear, and looks very much like Ramons flower. I don't know the source of that plant any more than most of the moquettianums I see for sale, but given the date that photo was put into print (1991) it would seem that the standard by which moquettianums have been described from has been contentious for many years. Also I mentioned a pic from the 2000 OD paph checklist by Koopowitz that has a more intermediate moquettianum with spots laid out in stipes. I don't know the source of that plant either. So is there such a thing as a "true" moquettianum in trade in the US? Is the standard of sparse random spotting considered the "true" var. simply because we can't acount for the variation in the species and the lack of proper collection data, so we only accept the most extreme form in hand as the only true form. If some one produces a flower with no spots at all, will that supplant all the spotted forms as the true form, and all spotted forms will be considered as hybrids (illicit or otherwise) at that point?
> 
> This may be a job only for cytology and DNA testing.
> 
> ...


 
Rick I had a moque with a clear yellow doesal and not that first spot on it. I had no doults of it's ID. I had used it to breed more moques and the ones that have bloomed look like typical moques with spots.


----------



## Mrs. Paph (Jun 12, 2008)

Can you post another pic sans special lighting?


----------



## Rick (Jun 12, 2008)

SlipperKing said:


> Rick I had a moque with a clear yellow doesal and not that first spot on it. I had no doults of it's ID. I had used it to breed more moques and the ones that have bloomed look like typical moques with spots.



When you said "you bred with it to get more moques" does that mean you selfed it? If you selfed it and got spots from no spots it sounds like spotting might be pretty variable in this species.

The pic on your earlier post is kind of dark, but is that the offspring of the cross you mention in an earlier post between the two "victoria-regina" aka OZ moquetXglaucophylum? It looks like a standard moque.

Do you have any pics of the parents of this cross?


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 13, 2008)

Rick said:


> When you said "you bred with it to get more moques" does that mean you selfed it? If you selfed it and got spots from no spots it sounds like spotting might be pretty variable in this species.
> 
> The pic on your earlier post is kind of dark, but is that the offspring of the cross you mention in an earlier post between the two "victoria-regina" aka OZ moquetXglaucophylum? It looks like a standard moque.
> 
> Do you have any pics of the parents of this cross?


 
Rick,
The moque with the clear dorsal ( clonal name,'Pink Limbs'), I believe came form Carter & Holmes and I used it as one parent the other parent was moquettianum 'Pink Coral' AM/AOS. Now, the poorly light moquettianum that I just posted is a cross of the clones; 'Doc's' and 'Pink Coral'. Both of these parent plants have spotted dorsals.


----------



## benilaca (Jun 15, 2008)

Leaves > NOT moquettianum! Not a spp. in the Coch. group.
Probably a hybrid. From the look of the buds & color of brack > littii X glauco. avail. as Pinochio or Pinochio X littii sold as Avalon Mist???


----------

