# rothschildianum "Borneo" - where did it come from?



## Shadow (Aug 29, 2006)

Does anybody know the history of Paph.rothschildianum 'Borneo'? What clones were crossed to obtain this clon? I'm asking because now I have an opportunity to order rothschildianum "Borneo" x self and I need to know how its flowers will look like. As I understand, they will not look as original 'Borneo'. Am I right?


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Lien responds in 3...2...1


----------



## Ron-NY (Aug 29, 2006)

It is my understanding that 'Borneo' was a jungle collected plant back in the 1960's. I believe a selfing of it was awarded about 6 or so years ago.


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

Yep, collected in the 1960s. (right Lien?)


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 29, 2006)

Paph rothschildianum "Borneo" was imported from Borneo in the late 60's or early 70's along with other clones such as "Charles E".


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

Wild collected


----------



## littlefrog (Aug 29, 2006)

For what it is worth, the 'Borneo' x self cross will probably grow more slowly and not be of as high a 'quality' as something more modern. We've had a few generations of selection between 'Borneo' and the latest roths being used for stud.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just evaluate your goals. If you want to get the most spectacular roth on the planet, it has less of a chance of coming out of the 'Borneo' cross. If you want something that actually looks like something that would be found in nature, then you probably would want to avoid the latest in line-breeding.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Aug 29, 2006)

As others have said, it was originally wild collected. It is probably not the best roth to get if you are looking for awards, since the dorsal sepal is nearly always quite skinny in its progeny compared with the Mt. Milais crosses. I've got the old standby 'Borneo' x 'Charles E' and it has big flowers, but an unimpressive dorsal typical of the cross.






Jon
________
Jeep Gladiator History


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 29, 2006)

Nonetheless, it is a gorgeous flower!


----------



## Shadow (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, I'm not looking for awards. I think I don't have enough experience for that. I just want to have nice looking rothschildianum, or two, or three of them ( or more, when I move to a bigger flat  ) And I have few to choose from: 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x self ; Borneo' FCC/AOS x 'C.E.' FCC/AOS; ‘Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS; 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x 'Eureka' AM/AOS; 'Sam's Choice' x 'Eureka' AM/AOS; 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' S/JGP 2001.

I think, I'll get 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x self because such plants (wild clones, parents of all modern clones) deserve to be a part of orchid collection, even if they are not the best. Just to protect history from disappearance.

And, probably, Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS, and/or 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' S/JGP 2001. What do you think of my choice?


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

Shadow said:


> I think, I'll get 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x self because such plants (wild clones, parents of all modern clones) deserve to be a part of orchid collection, even if they are not the best. Just to protect history from disappearance.
> 
> And, probably, Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS, and/or 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' S/JGP 2001. What do you think of my choice?



I think those are great choices! I would probably go for the 'Sam's Best' x 'Rex' but that is only knowing the parents and having seen a couple that have bloomed. That was actually the first rothschildianum I bought (because when I first started growing, I was afraid to spend any more than a seedling cost) so I am partial to it. Bob in Albany has that plant now. I am too impatient.


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' S/JGP 2001 this is prob the best since 50% mm
I believe 25%rex and 25% val. Also the parents themselves are great.

Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS next because you have some MM in there and 75% rex I think.
MM is the best parent to date. Look at the best roths. MM is there somewhere. I would avoid Borneo altogether if I were you.


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

I think even the mm x rex is slightly nicer than the rex x MM on average


----------



## silence882 (Aug 29, 2006)

'Val' was bred from 'C.E.' x 'Borneo'

The cross made by Tokyo Orchid Nursery of 'Val' x 'Mont Millais' is one of the (if not _the_) most proven crosses made yet. The older, 'lesser' clones do seem to have an intrinsic value that could manifest itself in second and third generation crosses.

--Stephen


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Hey Shadow,

I used to think the same way you do. I wanted the best looking plants that most closely mirrored the real thing growing in the wild. Then I realized two things.

First, the real thing is usually a very cranky grower. Slow growing and tempermental. Maybe I don't have enough experience to be growing plants like that and they should be left in the hands of those who know better.

Second, there are easily obtainable second generation seedlings of most species. These are just as good as the real thing, but usually are much easier to grow. They are usually "better" formed, but still close enough to the real thing to be enjoyable. 

I used to think besseae was only good if it had long thin angular petals. Then Lien showed me a photo of a wild collected besseae that had balloon shaped petals just like the newest breeding lines. I think that was the day I realized I was working a little too hard at collecting plants that may or may not really look like the "real" thing. I say if you want Borneo x self, go for it.

I still hate awards and that system though.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

And to the rest of you, it makes my heart hurt just a little when you say that the first generation, or two, crosses have no value and have less than stellar dorsals. They look pretty good to me, but maybe I am not looking at them with my AOS logo blindfold on.


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

Poor, poor roth. 'Borneo'....so unloved. 

ity:


Seriously though, I totally understand appreciating natural first generation plants. Look at how we've all flipped over something new like kovachii. But, I also think will be interesting to watch the process of 2nd and 3rd generational breeding that goes on over the next few years to see what is possible. Partly I am intrigued to watch this thanks to plants such as roth, which have become so fabulous with this sort of careful breeding. But mostly, because I haven't been growing long enough to have witnessed that process from discovery through breeding and it fascinates me. (Whoa, has hell frozen over? Ms. anti-science is fascinated by genetics! Will wonders never cease!?) I can't wait to see what happens!


----------



## littlefrog (Aug 29, 2006)

I never said the first generation crosses had no value... And I is an AOS judge. Heck, I collect Paph complex hybrids that are 80+ years old, when I can find them, and a lot of those really suck compared to modern breeding. It really depends on what you like. I appreciate both improved and 'unimproved' species. 

I agree fully with the other comments though. A few generations 'in captivity' does wonders for ease of culture and floriferousness. Why? Well, we select for that. If it doesn't grow, it doesn't breed. If it doesn't bloom a lot, it doesn't get used in a lot of crosses. A few generations of that, and we breed a lot of the cantankerousness right out of 'em. All that would happen in the absence of any artificial selection for 'quality', which of course is totally arbitrary and in the eyes of the breeder.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

littlefrog said:


> I never said the first generation crosses had no value...


 
You are right. Nobody said it outright. But there is a general undertone in most of the above posts that anything close to the original just isn't up to par with line bred stock. It just makes me a little sad to know that in another ten years or so there will be such a noticable difference in the appearance of the roths for sale, and that it will probably be impossible to find the earlier crosses. And this process is influenced in whole by the AOS awards system, so bigger will be better. Why not take a vigorous grower (which more often than not are not well formed flowers) and breed it with a well formed, but thinner dorsal roth to keep the "look" alive? Because there won't be any awards, that's why. 

Back on my soapbox. I know, I know.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Can someone please post a couple of photos of an "wild collected" looking cross like Borneo and one of the newest and best line bred plants side by side so I can see exactly what we are talking about here?

I think you all are about to convince me to order a Borneo x self, or two. Unless there is a better "old style" cross still available.


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I think you all are about to convince me to order a Borneo x self, or two. Unless there is a better "old style" cross still available.



Ha ha! Now that is peer pressure. Talk about enabling! oke:


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> an "wild collected" looking cross like Borneo and one of the newest and best line bred



What do people consider "best line bred"? Everyone raves about the progeny from the cross of 'Rex' x 'Mont Milais' and yet that is an F1. Both parents are wild collected.


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

paphioland said:


> Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS next because you have some MM in there and 75% rex I think.
> MM is the best parent to date. Look at the best roths. MM is there somewhere. I would avoid Borneo altogether if I were you.



Sam's best is bred from 'Charles E.' x 'Borneo', it is not from 'Rex' x 'Mont Milais'.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Heather said:


> Ha ha! Now that is peer pressure. Talk about enabling! oke:


 
I wouldn't say it's peer pressure. If anything they are trying to talk people out of buying earlier stuff!


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> You are right. Nobody said it outright. But there is a general undertone in most of the above posts that anything close to the original just isn't up to par with line bred stock. It just makes me a little sad to know that in another ten years or so there will be such a noticable difference in the appearance of the roths for sale, and that it will probably be impossible to find the earlier crosses. And this process is influenced in whole by the AOS awards system, so bigger will be better. Why not take a vigorous grower (which more often than not are not well formed flowers) and breed it with a well formed, but thinner dorsal roth to keep the "look" alive? Because there won't be any awards, that's why.
> 
> Back on my soapbox. I know, I know.



I believe that economic reasons are the primary factor in any sales of orchids (or anything else). People will purchase plants that produce large well colored flowers versus small poorly formed flowers. The AOS contributes in some manner, but in my opinion orchid nurseries can sell plants that are perceived as high quality. If you want to cull out the poorly formed and colored flowers and breed for that, you could certainly do so; but don't expect to see any demand for such a plant.........
Line breeding for quality has been done from the beginning to create "improved" species and hybrids, and that was prior to any concept of an award system. 
AOS Judging is becoming a scapegoat for people that don't understand the history of orchid hybridizing.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

lienluu said:


> What do people consider "best line bred"? Everyone raves about the progeny from the cross of 'Rex' x 'Mont Milais' and yet that is an F1. Both parents are wild collected.


 
I don't know, ask them. 

I am busy looking for a Borneo x CE to buy. :rollhappy:


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> Line breeding for quality has been done from the beginning to create "improved" species and hybrids, and that was prior to any concept of an award system.
> AOS Judging is becoming a scapegoat for people that don't understand the history of orchid hybridizing.


 
And when growers first made the decision to "improve" species, it was driven by ego and not for any other reason. It certainly wasn't to preserve genetic stock of the plants. I may not understand the history of orchid hybridizing. But it IS called orchid "hybridizing" is it not? That means to me that all the new breeding lines are "hybrids" and not true species, but they aren't labeled as such.

Man generally makes a total mess of the stewardship of orchid species. "Let's just cross besseae and dalessandroi, and the peruvian and ecuadorian forms of besseae into each other until we have some bastard seed that we call a true species." It's already been done. How many other species have we "muddied" so far? Paph philippinense is well on it's way. "But we gotta pluck them out of the ground and breed them fast before someone else gets to name them and gets our awards. And if we can make $$$ while doing it, Huzzah!" Thanks but no thanks.

All the wide dorsaled, solid maroon pouched roths in the world can't measure up to the smallest dorsaled, broken color pouched roth growing wild in borneo right now. That's a fact. Anyone who says different is selling something or needs a new certificate in order to feel good about themselves.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

I just wish somewhere, some rich orchid nut was smart enough to leave money behind to preserve orchids as they grow in the wild before we lose all these species to hybridization and CITES, which both do the same amount of "conservation" if you ask me.


----------



## gore42 (Aug 29, 2006)

If it makes you feel any better John, I have a few roths that I imported from Malaysia that are underbred, which I'm growing for that exact purpose... not breeding for awards or for sales, just for the genetic diversity of captive plants  

- Matt Gore


----------



## Marco (Aug 29, 2006)

Sometimes a potato is just a potato.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

I don't mean to sound like a loon. I had almost convinced myself that breeding was ok until this thread. I realize I am in the minority. I am sure many of you like both the "new" orchids and the "wild" originals. But not many think the wild originals are better like I do. And that's ok, as long as the discussion continues. I have, and will continue to buy, some of the line bred orchids like the balloon petalled besseae. I just wish the others were easier to find too.


----------



## silence882 (Aug 29, 2006)

Counter-points!

'Rex' and 'Mont Millais' are both wild-collected. They remain as two of the finest (according to the masses, i guess) roths in the world.

Also, line-breeding has the potential to save 'true' species. For example:
"Superior line-bred plants raised from seed are now widely available in trade and the species [_Phrag. besseae_] has recovered in the wild so that plants can now be seen at eye-level by roads in its native habitats in southern Ecuador and northern Peru."
(Cribb, P.J. "_Phragmipedium kovachii_ - An Amazing Discovery and Highly Threatened Orchid." _Orchid Conservation News_ 4 (May 2004): 19-20.)

Matt, are your Malaysian plants mostly/exclusively from Michael Ooi?

--Stephen

p.s. Anyone know any articles describing the history of 'Mont Millais'? I think it may have been in cultivation since the late 19th/ early 20th century.


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

John, you don't sound like a loon.  
I think it is a really interesting discussion. 

Also, the points Lien (and now Stephen) makes about many of these "best" plants not being terribly line bred, is very valid. In this day of F3 etc. generations, we forget exactly where plants like 'Rex' x 'Mont Millais' came from. We forget what is possible in nature alone...


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

silence882 said:


> Also, line-breeding has the potential to save 'true' species. For example:
> "Superior line-bred plants raised from seed are now widely available in trade and the species _Phrag. besseae_ has recovered in the wild so that plants can now be seen at eye-level by roads in its native habitats in southern Ecuador and northern Peru."
> (Cribb, P.J. "_Phragmipedium kovachii_ - An Amazing Discovery and Highly Threatened Orchid." _Orchid Conservation News_ 4 (May 2004): 19-20.)


 
Oh god. If you are telling me that OZ besseae have been reintroduced to the wild as "true" species, I am going to puke. 

Say it ain't so.  

jk.


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Oh god. If you are telling me that OZ besseae have been reintroduced to the wild as "true" species, I am going to puke.
> 
> Say it ain't so.
> 
> jk.




How is that style of conservation any less conservation? It's still re-introducing a "species" (granted a bred one) into it's native population, no?


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I am going to puke.




Here you go.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Aug 29, 2006)

Shadow said:


> choose from: 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x self ; Borneo' FCC/AOS x 'C.E.' FCC/AOS; ‘Sam's Best' FCC/AOS x ‘Rex' FCC/AOS; 'Borneo' FCC/AOS x 'Eureka' AM/AOS; 'Sam's Choice' x 'Eureka' AM/AOS; 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' S/JGP 2001.



Correct me if I am wrong (it has happened at least once  ) "Borneo", "Eureka", "Charles E" and "Commander" were a few of the 20 or so collected plants from the Collinette Expedition in the early 1960's. This expedition was the first post WW2 collection of rothschildianum. I think "Rex" is a seed raised clone, but I could be wrong on that. Rex is not the "best" flower, but is has fabulous vigor, and is relatively free and easy bloomer. The flower on "Rex" is good enough that the other traits make it the most sought after by breeders. 

The plant "Borneo" is relatively compact growing for a rothschildianum, and this trait can carry through in breeding. It is about average for ease of blooming, and has the benefit of blooming on a small plant. (Charles E is the clone that is a stingy bloomer). Borneo has fairly dark colors for a roth, but it's flower is small compared to other collected clones. It can bloom in a 4 inch pot, which other roths don't usually do, so in many ways "Borneo" has a lot going for it if you keep the windowsill orchid grower in mind. Depending on the size of the division "Borneo" will bloom with as few as one flower per stem up to 4 flowers per stem. The better roths do 5 or 6. "Borneo" is still a very good choice to use when making primary hybrids because it has great color and blooms as a compact plant. I will still buy "Borneo" progeny, especially primary hybrids. I won't buy "Charles E" progeny any more because it is the one that is mediocre by today's standards. 

Sam Tsui has the finest collection of roth clones of any nursery in the USA. He is very systematically breeding for the finest rothschildianums possible. I would not hesitate to buy his recomendations. I would go with "Sam's Best x Black Star". 

That's my 2 cents. Please correct me if I have detail incorrect, I wrote this from memory. I probably mispelled "Collinette" and that expedition may have been as early as 1959, it is all sort of "vague but true" in my head. 
Leo


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

I think they mean that line breeding produces superior plants in form and size so that the value of wild collected plants goes down giving the natives or outsiders less incentive to take wild plants.


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

Leo Schordje said:


> Correct me if I am wrong (it has happened at least once  ) "Borneo", "Eureka", "Charles E" and "Commander" were a few of the 20 or so collected plants from the Collinette Expedition in the early 1960's. This expedition was the first post WW2 collection of rothschildianum. I think "Rex" is a seed raised clone, but I could be wrong on that. Rex is not the "best" flower, but is has fabulous vigor, and is relatively free and easy bloomer. The flower on "Rex" is good enough that the other traits make it the most sought after by breeders.



Leo,

Rex is wild collected. There's an article in the Cymbidium Society Journal about it. If you'd like. I can e-mail a pdf copy to you.

Mont Milais was part of the same shipment that Commander was in. In fact, many people believe Commander and Mont Milais are in fact the same clone. That's what Sam mentioned to me in a conversation a few weeks back.

Lien


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Heather said:


> How is that style of conservation any less conservation? It's still re-introducing a "species" (granted a bred one) into it's native population, no?


 
:evil: advocate.

My main problem with all this comes from the "improving" part.

Are you telling me that this...






And this...






Are close enough to the same thing to be growing side by side in the wild?

The first image is a line bred Fox Valley clone. The second is a division of wild collected Peruvian besseae. Answer carefully, this is a trick question.


----------



## Marco (Aug 29, 2006)

lienluu said:


> Here you go.




Toilet Bowl! Yeah!


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Are you telling me that this...
> 
> Are close enough to the same thing to be growing side by side in the wild?
> 
> The first image is a line bred Fox Valley clone. The second is a division of wild collected Peruvian besseae. Answer carefully, this is a trick question.



I want to see those native besseaes that Lien showed you before I answer that question. :evil:


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

Heather said:


> I want to see those native besseaes that Lien showed you before I answer that question. :evil:



Here are two. One is a photo by Chuck Ackers.

It is Phrag. besseae 'Cow Hollow II' FCC/AOS, a collected plant imported and shown by Pui Chin in the early 90s.






This is the other, one that was imported by Hans Burkhardt, also in the early 90s


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Well see, it wouldn't matter what Lien showed you. Because for all intents and purposes, the top flower should not be growing in Peru.

I cheated a little by only showing you the flower (which most growers are all wrapped up in) but if you were to look at the plants you would see why. 

The top flower is growing on a plant that puts out stolons. The bottom plant is growing in a clump. According to Olaf Gruss, Peruvian besseae=clump growing and Ecuadorian besseae=stolon growing. The fox valley has Ecuadorian besseae in it's genetics. So would you still dump it in Peru? It is "improved," who cares if it isn't "true?" Right?


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

lienluu said:


> Leo,
> 
> Rex is wild collected. There's an article in the Cymbidium Society Journal about it. If you'd like. I can e-mail a pdf copy to you.
> 
> ...


I've heard the commander is mm possibility before too.


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

you can't stop "progress" and I use that term loosely. Or the human desire for progress. You also can't stop people from trying to stop progress. I know that made no sense

Wild collected plants are still desirable especially in plants like roths in the hopes of finding some new genetic trait that is desirable. The problem is your kind of thinking COULD lead some to collect wild plants which none of us want! It is better to know that somewhere out there a beautiful wild roth exists but that we have beautiful roths that are line breed too with out having to go to Mt Kinabalu and rip out 5000 roths if there are that many left to find one.
Also who says human breeding is unatural? What's the difference between a human and an insect pollinating orchids are we not natural. Is the human mind unnatural? 

The Rex x MM cross could have happened in the wild. Also if you go to The orchid inn or OZ when it is roth season I am sure they would be glad to sell you one of Roths that "looks wild" for cheap too. I have a crappy rex x MM that I bought for less then 50 $ just for the heck of it. I know at the OZ you can get one for 50 $ if you go there.

I like hybridizing and I see nothing wrong with it. I agree reintroducing hybridized plants is prob not a good idea. That I guess you could call "unnatural".

Just my rambling for what its worth. prob not a whole lot.


----------



## silence882 (Aug 29, 2006)

(I think a joke or two may have skewed the besseae thing. Cribb's statement on besseae wasn't talking about reintroduction. The populations that were damaged by rapacious collecting have begun to regenerate by themselves.)

--Stephen


----------



## lienluu (Aug 29, 2006)

Here is another collected bess clone. This one was imported and shown by Ron at Taylor Orchids.

'Orange Delight' AM/AOS


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 29, 2006)

The fact that the local populations are reestablishing is a direct result of artificial sib crosses. Taking the pressure off of wild orchids will hopefully help to ensure their survival in the wild. Of course, habitat loss is an even larger threat!
An even better example of line breeding species is Vanda coerulea...It has been bred for 10 or 12 generations already and it hardly resembles the wild version. The genetic material, however, is the same.....


----------



## paphioland (Aug 29, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> . The genetic material, however, is the same.....



Not really true. You can change genetics greatly by inbreeding and strong environmental selection. There ae some genes that are necessary for life and those are conserved through most of the plant kingdom. Also it is not the genetic difference that matters as much as the proteins they translate to. One genetic alteration can have a huge difference on how the genetic code is carried out. This is all simplified of course.


----------



## Heather (Aug 29, 2006)

So, have we totally scared poor Shadow away yet?  

Hope not, Shadow. We're just a talkative bunch. We're very friendly though, I promise!


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 29, 2006)

Shadow, stay in her blind spot and don't make any sudden movements.


----------



## PHRAG (Aug 29, 2006)

Shadow lives in the Ukraine. And you thought the time difference between southwestern and northeastern America was a drag!


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Aug 29, 2006)

Paraphrasing time, cuz I'm a little lost.

Are we saying that "desirible" clones of pure species like roth selectively bred for fuller flowers shouldn't be reintroduced into the wild? Is this worse than selfing a plant and introducing those offspring? 

If a plant like besseae is selectively bred from desirible wild clones, should those not be reintroduced? If d'alesandroi and besseae "ecuador" grow within range of eachother, how do we know they aren't crossed in the wild by natural(insect) pollinators?

The way I see it, there are desirible clones of species and undesirible clones of species, all based on opinion. In the wild they grow in range of eachother and pollinate one another. Look at delenatii, who for many generations all came from one plant in cultivation. Now that new ones have been found, aren't their characteristics considered more desirible? If we reintroduced the old delenatii into the wild with the "new ones", would it be good or bad in broadening the gene pool for delenatii and ensuring future generations?

I can understand striving to keep wild clones of plants, but not "preserving" them in other ways. How do you preserve them? Inbreeding and selfing? This would seem like a step backwards towards preservation to me.

Back to one of the original questions, kinda, if asked to choose between a clump of 'Borneo' and a clump of 'Mt. Milais', I would choose 'Mt. Milais' hands down every time. It is more appealing to me, and more of the ideal I have in my head of what rothschildianum is and should be. Why? Same reason I have the taste I have for women I guess. There are things I like and things I don't in flowers.
I do cherish all the wild collected plants I have from Rands years ago though, even though fuller more robust plants are available from generations of selective breeding. Do I like them more than those line bred ones? I do for originality, but not for form. I like both for each reason.

Jon
________
Venza


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 29, 2006)

Very intriguing questions, Jon. Interesting observations, also.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Aug 29, 2006)

For someone starting out with roths, and myself included, I'd go for a cross that is reported to be easier to bloom...supposedly, crosses made by Charles E are supposed to be difficult to bloom....My cross is supposed to be easy...now if only I could get it to actually grow......
As for crossing plants that are more "natural"....Ray Rands said years ago that he did not make crosses based on "award" potential...he just crossed representatives of the speces, regardless of appearance...he said that they had just as good a chance of making superior plants as awarded parents. Take care, Eric


----------



## Shadow (Aug 30, 2006)

Heather said:


> So, have we totally scared poor Shadow away yet?



No, you didn't. I wasn't here because of the time difference. 
And I'm really surprised to find 6 pages of responses! A lot of information to think about. I need to re-read these pages couple of times to decide on "Borneo". I like its compact growing habit, but I want 2 others as well. 3 roths + new orchids from other places .... I can imagine the face of my husband.... :sob: 

Now I'm glad I didn't buy rothschildianum in Germany. It was without the clone name.


----------



## Rick (Aug 30, 2006)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> For someone starting out with roths, and myself included, I'd go for a cross that is reported to be easier to bloom...supposedly, crosses made by Charles E are supposed to be difficult to bloom....My cross is supposed to be easy...now if only I could get it to actually grow......



Paphman has been giving me allot of info on roth strains, and we swapped some pollen for some more crossing. He suggested that Eureka was an exceptionally vigorous and easy strain to bloom. It has done well for me mixed with Rex or Noyo.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 31, 2006)

Rick said:


> It has done well for me mixed with Rex or Noyo.


Have you got photos?


----------



## Paphman910 (Aug 31, 2006)

Hello Shadow:
I would go for Paph rothschildianum 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' BUT I would purchase at least four seedlings. Just remember that each seedling growth rate may be different. For example I purchased a flask of Paph rothschildianum 'Powerhouse' x 'Scorpio King' exactly three years ago and the growth rate of them are quite different among the 25 seedling that I got. They range from 24" ls to 12" ls. There are a few seedlings that are only 6" ls and I consider them to be runts. The cross Paph rothschildianum 'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' is very similar to Paph rothschildianum 'Powerhouse' x 'Scorpio King'. The 'Black Star' clone is made in Japan using the 'Val' and 'Mont Millais'. The clone 'Val' is from Jack Tonkin breeding from the 'Charles E' x 'Borneo' cross. I believe the clone 'Sam's Delight' is made from the 'Rex' x 'Mont Millais' done by Orchid Zone in Salina, California by Terry Root. It is going to be interesting to see what these new roth will look like in the future. I hope my roth will flower in the next 2-3 years. 

Paphman910


----------



## Shadow (Sep 1, 2006)

'Sam's Delight' x 'Black Star' are only 8 -12 cm (leave span). I think, I need a bigger rothschildianum too. I'm too impatient to wait 5-7 years for my first rothschildianum to bloom.


----------



## silence882 (Sep 1, 2006)

I got curious about the origin of 'Mont Millais' from a statement I read a while back. In the Nov. 1986 AOS Bulletin, Christopher Bailes, then curator for the Eric Young Orchid Foundation, wrote an article about the EYOF in which he stated:

"This collection was purchased from Sander's closing sale, and it is interesting to note that from this same batch of plants choice cultivars of Paphiopedilum rothschildianum and Angraecum sesquipedale have within the last year received a First Class Certificate and Award of Merit from the R.H.S. Orchid Committee, respectively, the former plant having been in cultivation almost certainly from the turn of the century."

P. rothschildianum 'Mont Millais' was awarded an FCC/RHS in 1985, so I figured it must be the same clone. I contacted Mr. Bailes (now having been curator of the RHS gardens at Rosemoor for 18 years) and he confirmed that he was very confident that 'Mont Millais' came from the 1958 closing sale of Sander's (one year before the 1959 Collenette expedition).

Therefore, I am reasonably sure that Paph. rothschildianum 'Mont Millais' (it's spelled wrong in the AOS awards) is a Victorian-era clone.

--Stephen


----------



## Paphman910 (Sep 1, 2006)

Hi Stephan:
I heard about this regarding Paph rothschildianum 'Mont Millais' a few years ago but I wasn't sure if it was true.

Paphman910


----------



## Mycorrhizae (Sep 2, 2006)

silence882 said:


> ...Therefore, I am reasonably sure that Paph. rothschildianum 'Mont Millais' (it's spelled wrong in the AOS awards) is a Victorian-era clone.
> 
> --Stephen



I was listening in on a conversation between several paph afficianados, including Alan Moon - former curator of Eric Young Orchid Foundation, Frank Smith, Terry Root and Harold Koopowitz at the Orlando AOS Members Meeting. The conversation was centered around _Paph. rothschildianum _'Krull's Raven' and just how we got to this milestone in breeding. Alan Moon was discussing the history of _Paph. rothschildianum_ 'Mont Millais', which is one of the parents of 'Krull's Raven'. Frank questioned Alan on the origin of 'Mont Millais' and at that point Alan went into quite a history lesson (_This guy is fascinating!) _on what he thought was the most important paph find in modern history. He said that 'La Tuilerie', 'Commander', 'Mont Millais', and 'Rex' were four of a group of five _Paph. rothschildianum _specimens collected by Sanders during the same expedition. The fifth plant did not survive. One thing that he was _emphatic_ about was that *they were all different cultivars *- debunking the notion that 'Commander' and 'Mont Millais' are one and the same.


----------



## Rick (Sep 2, 2006)

Shadow said:


> Have you got photos?




Bloomed this spring.


----------



## Heather (Sep 2, 2006)

Mycorrhizae said:


> I was listening in on a conversation between several paph afficianados, including Alan Moon - former curator of Eric Young Orchid Foundation, Frank Smith, Terry Root and Harold Koopowitz at the Orlando AOS Members Meeting. The conversation was centered around _Paph. rothschildianum _'Krull's Raven' and just how we got to this milestone in breeding. Alan Moon was discussing the history of _Paph. rothschildianum_ 'Mont Millais', which is one of the parents of 'Krull's Raven'. Frank questioned Alan on the origin of 'Mont Millais' and at that point Alan went into quite a history lesson (_This guy is fascinating!) _on what he thought was the most important paph find in modern history. He said that 'La Tuilerie', 'Commander', 'Mont Millais', and 'Rex' were four of a group of five _Paph. rothschildianum _specimens collected by Sanders during the same expedition. The fifth plant did not survive. One thing that he was _emphatic_ about was that *they were all different cultivars *- debunking the notion that 'Commander' and 'Mont Millais' are one and the same.




I find the histories of the cultivars such as this so fascinating. I wish there was more of this information somewhere. It seems to be such an orally based history.


----------



## Shadow (Sep 3, 2006)

Rick said:


> Bloomed this spring.



Beautiful plant! And how big is the flower? Is there only four of them per stalk?


----------



## Rick (Sep 3, 2006)

This was a first time bloomer with only one adult growth. Only 3 flowers with a span of about 27 cm. I don't know if its just this clone or an environmental factor, but there is considerable petal droop reducing the flower span.


----------



## Marco (Sep 3, 2006)

Nice roth Rick.


----------



## paphioland (Sep 3, 2006)

Rick said:


> This was a first time bloomer with only one adult growth. Only 3 flowers with a span of about 27 cm. I don't know if its just this clone or an environmental factor, but there is considerable petal droop reducing the flower span.




Krull Smith's mm selfing got an fcc in 2004. I belive it was given a 93 the same as perfection that year. Forgot the cultivar name. It had very down sweeping petals. Some people were very fond of it.


----------



## paphioland (Sep 3, 2006)

The color was also very good on their selfing. Dorsal looked pinched in the pics though but I did like the shape. Primarily though I usually like the imposing look of a roth when its petals are held straight out.

Ken


----------

