# My Paph. insigne



## GuRu (Jan 30, 2021)

Can't resist to show my Pah. insigne here even if this lovely species might be of little interest ?


----------



## Don I (Jan 30, 2021)

I like them and they grow well. There is nothing like a plant that is trouble free, more or less.
Don


----------



## fibre (Jan 31, 2021)

This is a very nice Monsieur de Curte, Rudolf!


----------



## dodidoki (Jan 31, 2021)

Great plant and flower!


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Jan 31, 2021)

All flowers, big and small, pretty or not, requires the same coordination and machinations of genes, building blocks and messenger pathways, to form. 

It is truly a miracle built by Mother Nature with air, water and detritus. 

By virtual of these two corollary truths, the conclusion must be that this insigne is the 'perfect ' flower.


----------



## GuRu (Jan 31, 2021)

fibre said:


> This is a very nice Monsieur de Curte, Rudolf!



Chris, are you sure?? Though since I've been reading your posting I look at the flower with diferent eyes and the pouch of my plant is slightly oblong, P. villosum like. On the other hand I've seen photos of P. insigne with a more oblong pouch in the net, too. Not sure whether they are all correctly labeled. I searched for photos of 'Paph. Monsieur de Curte' and what I found looks different to my flower.
According to the RHS Orchid Register Paph. Monsieur de Curte was registered as a cross between P. (villosum var.) boxalli x P. insigne in 1893.


----------



## P.K.Hansen (Jan 31, 2021)

This is one of my insigne ( have another, better, just like it)
Looks much like yours.


----------



## Tom499 (Jan 31, 2021)

One of my favourite Paphs! A real natural classic!


----------



## fibre (Jan 31, 2021)

About ten years ago there came some very old hybrids into trade. They origin from a nursery for cut flowers of Paphiopedilum in Saxony, if I remember correctly. They were labeled as Archie-Nield, Damascus, Milo, Monsieur de Curte or even 'insigne-allianz'. Maybe you and some other European enthusiasts got plants from this source. In Europe it is more easy to sell species than primaries. In a first step they go as 'insigne-allianz', in the next step they are just straight insigne. Your flower looks very similar to the one, Carsten posted here as Paph. Monsieur de Curte years ago: 




But maybe they all are just Paph. Nitens (insigne x villosum).


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 1, 2021)

It looks a little different to the insignes I see locally.


----------



## Guldal (Feb 1, 2021)

I kind of think your insigne might maybe be a cousin to the "insigne" of doubtfull proveniens and status, that I posted recently, Rudolf. I think, that the designation 'Insigne-Allianz' might be the most appropriate term for both our plants!


Especially when you compare both our plants to my little collection of genuine insignes - I link to an older post of mine:

First the 'Harefield Hall, SM/DOK (from Hans Christiansen of Fredensborg):
View attachment 18905

'Farmor' (danish for granny, or more precisely: paternal grandmother), BM/DOK:
View attachment 18907

'Guldal', SM/DOK:
View attachment 18908

Group photo:
View attachment 18909


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Feb 1, 2021)

I agree that it is heavily villosum rather than insigne.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 2, 2021)

fibre said:


> About ten years ago there came some very old hybrids into trade. They origin from a nursery for cut flowers of Paphiopedilum in Saxony, if I remember correctly. They were labeled as Archie-Nield, Damascus, Milo, Monsieur de Curte or even 'insigne-allianz'. Maybe you and some other European enthusiasts got plants from this source. In Europe it is more easy to sell species than primaries. In a first step they go as 'insigne-allianz', in the next step they are just straight insigne......
> But maybe they all are just Paph. Nitens (insigne x villosum).



Chris, thanks a lot for your input and I think you - and some others here - are right. I also think my plant must be no straight P. insigne but at least a primary hybrid with P. villosum. It doesn't matter whether it is P. Monsieur de Curte or P. Nitens because I never will find it out. I searched for the old thread of Carsten here and it still has been here but unfortunatela all photos has been deleted (I think by the image host). But your shown photos seems to be one of them. Furthermore I compared with photos of Paph. insigne on slipperorchids.info and in the net and they all look differently. Even and 'old' photo of a Paph. insigne which I used to grow some years ago shows another flower. Have a look by your own.






Source of the plant was a nursery which, I think, isn't the very firts address in Paphs here in Germany but it is a renowned nursery in orchids 'Wichmann Orchideen' in Celle.


----------



## Guldal (Feb 2, 2021)

GuRu said:


> Chris, thanks a lot for your input and I think you - and some others here - are right. I also think my plant must be no straight P. insigne but at least a primary hybrid with P. villosum. It doesn't matter whether it is P. Monsieur de Curte or P. Nitens because I never will find it out. I searched for the old thread of Carsten here and it still has been here but unfortunatela all photos has been deleted (I think by the image host). But your shown photos seems to be one of them. Furthermore I compared with photos of Paph. insigne on slipperorchids.info and in the net and they all look differently. Even and 'old' photo of a Paph. insigne which I grew some years ago shows another flower. Have a look by your own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your old insigne, Rudolf, indeed, a gorgeous one! Now resting peacefully in OH? 
Kind regards, Jens


----------



## Guldal (Feb 2, 2021)

P.K.Hansen said:


> This is one of my insigne ( have another, better, just like it)
> Looks much like yours.


Per, from the rest of this thread, it's probably most likely to conclude, that the flower in your photo is yet another non-signe... Join the club, thankfully, if I myself may say so, both Rudolf and I can be considered fairly jolly company!


----------



## P.K.Hansen (Feb 3, 2021)

Well Jens, I'm not too thrilled about it anyway ( three flowers right now though) 
I'll get me another one - hopefully the real deal.


----------



## fibre (Feb 3, 2021)

Why do some of you not love the flowers as they are? May it be an early hybrid or a species, the flowers are beautiful anyway! Does a flower have more charm if you know it is a species? Does a flower loose all its beauty in the moment you know it could be a hybrid???

I especially like Rudolf's first flower in this thread because of the nice bolt spots and its charming flower shape. And I like the flower of Carsten's Paph. Monsieur de Curte because of its exciting dorsal!

But of course it is an other thing if it comes to propagation and hybridization...


----------



## GuRu (Feb 3, 2021)

fibre said:


> Why do some of you not love the flowers as they are? May it be an early hybrid or a species, the flowers are beautiful anyway! Does a flower have more charm if you know it is a species? Does a flower loose all its beauty in the moment you know it could be a hybrid???.....



Chris, to say it frankly......my quest of the identidy of my plant does not mean that I wouldn't like the flower. The only reason to be slightly disappointed could be that I wanted a straight Paph. insigne.....nothing else.


----------



## P.K.Hansen (Feb 3, 2021)

As Guru says, it's just not what I hoped for. I want one like the picture he posted above, with a flatter, greener dorsal. I guess we're spoiled


----------



## Guldal (Feb 3, 2021)

fibre said:


> Why do some of you not love the flowers as they are? May it be an early hybrid or a species, the flowers are beautiful anyway! Does a flower have more charm if you know it is a species? Does a flower loose all its beauty in the moment you know it could be a hybrid???


Well, I'm just an awfull speciesist! 

Joke aside, I really hoped for something like Guru's genuine article - I neeeeeed an insigne with a more green colouring of the dorsal to complete my collection of insignes! I like my flower, though, and enjoy it gracing my living room at the mo!


----------



## paphiopere (Feb 3, 2021)

P.K.Hansen said:


> This is one of my insigne ( have another, better, just like it)
> Looks much like yours.


No lo veo como sobresaliente. Lo siento


----------



## P.K.Hansen (Feb 4, 2021)

paphiopere said:


> No lo veo como sobresaliente. Lo siento


Neither do I


----------



## paphiopere (Feb 17, 2021)

Mi Paphiopedilum insigne


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 17, 2021)

I think it is not staight insigne, although very nice.


----------



## DrLeslieEe (Feb 17, 2021)

I'm intrigued by this thread. 

I have never bloomed an insigne and have only one small 2 little growth division of insigne sanderae, years from flowering. 

In the opinion of the seasoned growers here, what defines a true insigne in terms of traits of markings/color, staminode and plant features? Also varieties that you think is valid? 

Please show with examples to help me appreciate the nuances of these determinations? Many thanks ahead of time.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 17, 2021)

That is what my insigne looked like back in South Africa (I would love another!)

From my photo, comparing it with GuRu's plant I would say the only difference is that the red-brown spots extend up only to the green and not into the white cap of the hood. GuRu's spots extend up into the spots.

You can see the same here: IOSPE PHOTOS

Whether this is a tell-tale sign of insigne purity I don't know... How much natural variation is there?


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 17, 2021)

Here is another South Africa insigne (not mine) with larger flowers and double blooms per spike. Same pattern with the spots as before. Almost identical to my old plant...


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 17, 2021)

Here is a thread on insigne showing the Harefield Hall clone: Paphiopedilum insigne 'Harefield Hall' FCC ? same story with the spotting. But here is a photo showing the spots extending into the white: Paph. insigne 'Harefield Hall'


----------



## Duck Slipper (Feb 17, 2021)

GuRu said:


> Can't resist to show my Pah. insigne here even if this lovely species might be of little interest ?


Not sure why it would be of little interest. Excellent flower and it looks LARGE. Very nice and good thread!


----------



## Guldal (Feb 17, 2021)

TyroneGenade said:


> Here is a thread on insigne showing the Harefield Hall clone: Paphiopedilum insigne 'Harefield Hall' FCC ? same story with the spotting. But here is a photo showing the spots extending into the white: Paph. insigne 'Harefield Hall'


The first photo is definately not Harefield Hall... the second might be!


----------



## Duck Slipper (Feb 17, 2021)

This is a complex paph I bought from Woodstream years ago. Tag is long gone so I have no idea of the parents, but,
I see a lot of insigne influence?


----------



## GuRu (Feb 18, 2021)

Duck Slipper said:


> Not sure why it would be of little interest......



DS, I wrote these lines by impression of the littele reaction to the Paph. insigne thread of Don I with only 3 responds (including me) and 139 views, although I think he showed a nice and obviously true Paph. insigne.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 18, 2021)

TyroneGenade said:


> .......From my photo, comparing it with GuRu's plant I would say the only difference is that the red-brown spots extend up only to the green and not into the white cap of the hood. GuRu's spots extend up into the spots.......



Tyron, if your posting refers to my first shown photo, I can't agree in this case. There a a lot more differences which might refer to Paph. villosum as one of its anchestors. There are the oblong and wedge shaped pouch, the stance of the petals, the shape of the dorsal with its backward rolled margins of the lower parts......
BTW I sent an email with the photo to the nursery I bought this plantfrom.......and they said....it would be a true Paph. insigne. But I'm still waiting to the other expertises.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 18, 2021)

paphiopere said:


> Mi Paphiopedilum insigne



In mis ojos lo esta un Paph. insigne bonito.


----------



## TyroneGenade (Feb 18, 2021)

Rolled dorsal and wedge-shaped pouch, but "normal spotting": Paphiopedilum insigne is Ecuagenera selling a hybrid? This one also has a rolled back dorsal and wedge pouch: http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/paphinsignevarmaulei.jpg Wedge-shaped pouches here too IOSPE PHOTOS and variation in the spotting as well.

The one at the back has the same petal stance as yours: File:A and B Larsen orchids - Paphiopedilum insigne 165-4.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Is that also a hybrid? What about this one with down-swept petals http://www.orchidspecies.com/orphotdir/paphinsigneforsanderianum.jpg ?

I don't think the characters you mention are diagnostic for the species.

What casts doubt in my mind about yours is the two-tone petals as is more typical of villosum and its hybrids. But how certain are we that this also isn't just natural variation for the species or the product of selective breeding?

I am very skeptical of pronouncements of "hybrid" when we have little idea of the natural variation within the species or how much the form can be changed by selective breeding.


----------



## GuRu (Feb 18, 2021)

TyroneGenade said:


> ........I am very skeptical of pronouncements of "hybrid" when we have little idea of the natural variation within the species or how much the form can be changed by selective breeding.



Tyron, maybe you are right? So far I didn't call it hybrid and I won't do so. I always said, there may/might be P. villosum in its family tree. If and when....I don't know. Jens (Guldal) already mentioned he will write P. insigne alliance on the tag of his plant and similarly will I do.
When I started this thread, I didn't have doubts of its identidy in my mind but the more I look at this flower the more grow my doubts. I sent my photo also to Himar Bauch of Asendorfer Orchideen and talked with him on the phone this morning and he also shares those doubts. But who knows? At any rate I like this flower without any doubt.


----------

