# orchid varieties used in hybridizing



## Kevin (May 10, 2009)

I was doing some research into Cypripedium hybrids, and I was reading the recent thread here on Paph. concolor var. longipetalum, and got to wondering when is it 'proper' or 'acceptable' to make a hybrid using one variety of a species, then make another hybrid using another variety of the same species, and give them different names? Eg. Cyp. Gisela is parviflorum x macranthos, and Cyp. Aki is parviflorum var. pubescens x macranthos. The RHS recognizes this, however, hybrids made with Phrag. besseae var. flavum are not. I thought the norm was that if you re-make a hybrid using a different variety of one or more species, that the name would still be the same. Or, how about the different varieties of Paph. phillipinense? Could someone explain the 'rules'?


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2009)

I'm not sure but the besseae v. flavum is just from a different color sport.  So that may not be the best example.


----------



## kentuckiense (May 10, 2009)

NYEric said:


> I'm not sure but the besseae v. flavum is just from a different color sport.  So that may not be the best example.



Eric is right. The flavum besseae is technically a form, not a variety. Braem published it as a variety and then Gruss (correctly) established it as a form.


----------



## Kevin (May 11, 2009)

I figured that the flavum might not be a variety, but it kind of gets to my point, though. It would be nice if we always knew, by looking at the name of a hybrid, what exactly, within reason, we would be getting. If there are plants of a species that are different in colour and/or shape than the 'type', they are given a forma or variety status. What is the difference? Many named varieties are frequently used as species. If the RHS accepts varieties as 'species status' in order to give the hybrids different names, then why not just make them species? How about Paph philippinense verses philippinense var. roebelinii? Or hirsutissimun and var. esquirolei? Or villosum and var. boxallii? When these species and varieties are used in crosses, do the results always have different names?


----------



## snow (May 11, 2009)

too complicated for me.
i just grow them cause i like them.


----------



## bench72 (May 11, 2009)

hmm, i was thinking about this last night when i was reading about Vanda tricolor versus Vanda tricolor var suavis. When both are crossed with Euanthe sanderiana you get either a Vanda Tatzeri or Vanda Burgeffii respectively.

and yet, when u cross philiipinense with adductum or adductum var anitum, you still get Addicted Phillip. what the?


----------



## Ernie (May 11, 2009)

Hybrid names are concerned only with the species involved, not the form, variety, or cultivars used. So (adductum X philippinense) AND (adductum var. anitum X philippinense) are BOTH Addicted Philip. For this reason, I tend to favor splitting at the species level because it helps preserve the little traits the varieties/forms lend. A good example is moquettianum which was split off from glaucophyllum in recent history. The two breed very different and it is in hybridizers' and hobbyists' interest to recognize them as separate entities IMO. 

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (May 11, 2009)

In 50 years the diff will be lost as varieties get hybridized and name tags get lost.


----------



## Kyle (May 11, 2009)

Recently the RHS allowed a hybridizer to name a hybrid between the blue phal violacea and the blue phal equestris as a unique name, rather then Phal eculacea. Sorry for the spelling....

More info can be found here:

http://www.thehybridizersforum.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1226037974

Kyle


----------



## bench72 (May 11, 2009)

oooh, quick someone put in an application for Paph philippinense x Paph adductum var anitum = Paph Slippertalk


----------



## Ernie (May 11, 2009)

Interesting, Kyle. Haven't heard of that. Thanks for the info! 

-Ernie


----------



## Kevin (May 12, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Hybrid names are concerned only with the species involved, not the form, variety, or cultivars used. So (adductum X philippinense) AND (adductum var. anitum X philippinense) are BOTH Addicted Philip. For this reason, I tend to favor splitting at the species level because it helps preserve the little traits the varieties/forms lend. A good example is moquettianum which was split off from glaucophyllum in recent history. The two breed very different and it is in hybridizers' and hobbyists' interest to recognize them as separate entities IMO.
> 
> -Ernie



The RHS doesn't seem to agree with your first statement. Perhaps the problem is that, when some crosses are made using varieties, they are not registered as such by the breeder, so we don't see adductum var. anitum x philippinense as a different hybrid. If you are correct, then how do you explain Cyp. Gisela and Cyp. Aki? Shouldn't they both be Gisela? Have any varieties of philipinense been used to cross with rothschildianum? Are they all Saint Swithin, or are there others?


----------



## tim (May 13, 2009)

It's my understanding of RHS rules that something can be registered as a new grex if it shows significant differences from the original grex. There are some examples of phals that show this clearly, although the names escape me - this question was written up in Orchids recently. In some phals, the grex name is dependant on whether parent A was the pollen parent or the pod parent. Likewise, phals hybrids made with the "harlequin" mutant Golden Peoker have different grex names than those made with the normal yellow Golden Peoker. Such is the case with some blue violacea crosses as well. So I guess the trick would be to convince the Orchid Registrar at the RHS that hybrids made with different varieties of philippinense are really different from each other enough to deserve a new grex name...unfortunately even in that case the philippinense variety used would not be recorded!! 

More information can be found on the orchid grex registration pdf: here
Also, have a look at the RHS Orchid Registrar pages: here

Hope this helps!!
-Tim


----------



## Kevin (May 17, 2009)

bench72 said:


> hmm, i was thinking about this last night when i was reading about Vanda tricolor versus Vanda tricolor var suavis. When both are crossed with Euanthe sanderiana you get either a Vanda Tatzeri or Vanda Burgeffii respectively.
> 
> and yet, when u cross philiipinense with adductum or adductum var anitum, you still get Addicted Phillip. what the?



This gets exactly to my point - anyone care to tackle this? What are the rules? Seeems pretty arbitrary. If a plant is different enough to be given a variety status, then when breeding with it, then the resulting cross should be different enough to warant it's own name. The RHS obviously accepts varieties to be used in hybridizing, but do they reject some, and that's why they are not listed, or do breeders just not register some crosses used woth varieties?


----------



## Kevin (May 17, 2009)

Kyle said:


> Recently the RHS allowed a hybridizer to name a hybrid between the blue phal violacea and the blue phal equestris as a unique name, rather then Phal eculacea. Sorry for the spelling....
> 
> More info can be found here:
> 
> ...



Do we need to be a member to find this post? Sounds interesting.


----------



## NYEric (May 17, 2009)

If you recognize more varieties then many hybrids can be re-named.


----------



## Kevin (May 24, 2009)

Okay, so I guess there has to be a large difference between crosses in order to give them different names. Can someone tell me what difference, if any, there is in St. Swithin crosses when different varieties of philippinense are used, especially roebelinii? I just ordered one of these, because I was hoping for a larger, darker flower with more twisting in the petals. roebelinii is apparently different enough to be called a variety, but these traits don't transfer to the hybrids?


----------

