# What are the differences between Cyps, Paphs and Phrags?



## Kevin (Mar 18, 2010)

I have been stumped by this question - what are the differences between genera in the slipper orchid alliance, specifically Cyps, Paphs and Phrags? I can tell the difference by looking at them, but I can't tell you why they are different. How would you explain the differences to someone who is new to orchids (or even someone who isn't)? What are the main features of the flowers and plant that set them apart from each other?


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Mar 18, 2010)

Cyps grow in cold places, Phrags grow in warm places in the Americas, and Paphs grow in warm places in Asia!:rollhappy::rollhappy:

Sorry...

Oops, one more, Mexipedium grows only in Mexico and is really small.:evil:


----------



## Rick (Mar 18, 2010)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Cyps grow in cold places, Phrags grow in warm places in the Americas, and Paphs grow in warm places in Asia!:rollhappy::rollhappy:
> 
> Sorry...
> 
> Oops, one more, Mexipedium grows only in Mexico and is really small.:evil:



Don't forget the Selenepedium (also found in the Americas) They get huge (like 20' tall).

I believe Cyps are all deciduous. too. Without getting the books out I think Cyps have just 2 or so, usually fuzzy leaves that die back for the winter.

Given the lack of success in crossing phrags with paphs there must also be a significant genetic dissimilarity despite the similarity in appearence.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Mar 18, 2010)

Rick said:


> Don't forget the Selenepedium (also found in the Americas) They get huge (like 20' tall).



So true, I forgot about them Rick!



> I believe Cyps are all deciduous. too. Without getting the books out I think Cyps have just 2 or so, usually fuzzy leaves that die back for the winter.



Until we found out that C. subtropicum holds their leaves for at least two seasons! Cyps range around the boards in terms of number of leaves with as few as one for some species (Section Trigonopedia) and up to perhaps 20 or more in C. irapeanum in large specimens. Some Cyps have opposite leaves, most alternate, some are glaucous, some pubescent. Flowers can be held singly or in clusters or in extended spikes. Most species open all at once and some are sequential. And so on. The situation is too complex to generalize about. Forget flower structure....basically they have the same characteristics, but specialization is extreme. And all of this variation occurs just within this one genus with a total of less than 50 known species!

What are the differences between these genera? Too many to generalize about in my opinion. I'm sure though that someone will try!


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 18, 2010)

Actually, I like your description, Tom!


----------



## etex (Mar 18, 2010)

Tom's description works for me, too!


----------



## Kevin (Mar 18, 2010)

Okay, let's try this - if you had a Paph and a Phrag side-by-side, any species or hybrid of each, how would you explain why one is a Paph, and the other is a Phrag? For example, could Phrag caudatum (or whatever it is called today) be confused with some of the multi-floral Paphs in plant structure alone? How about flowers - when you have a Paph, Phrag and Cyp side-by-side, all in flower, how and why would you identify each, based on the flower alone? What are you looking at to make that decision? I've never been able to pin that one down.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 18, 2010)

For one thing, the plant structure is totally different. Phrags have long, sword-shaped leaves, and Paphs have thicker, wider leaves that are held closer to the ground. Granted, there are mottled and non-mottled Paphs, but these leaves are still more similar to each other than they are to Phrag leaves (or for that matter, to Cyp and Selen leaves). Paph and Phrag (and Mexi) leaves are conduplicate, and Cyp and Selen leaves are plicate.

The ovaries are a huge part of the classification of slippers. Paph ovaries are unilocular, Phrag ovaries are trilocular, Mexi ovaries are unilocular (in the centre) and trilocular (in the ends), Cyp ovaries are trilocular, and Selen ovaries are unilocular.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 18, 2010)

I am very familiar with the plant structures of these plants, and that part seems pretty straight forward. Phrags mostly have grass-like foliage, and Paphs never do. Cyps are thin-leaved, since they are deciduous. I am mostly wondering about the flowers. I never look at the ovaries to determine a type of slipper orchid. Btw, what is unilocular anyway, and how would this help a beginner? There has to be a straight-forward way of telling the difference between the genera by looking at the flower. I can tell, but I just can't explain it. I have the same problem with Cattleyas and Laelias too, so maybe it's just me.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 18, 2010)

The terms unilocular and trilocular refer to the number of loculi (chambers) in the ovary. You have to dissect the ovary to see this. Therefore, I wouldn't call it a "beginners" way to tell the difference. 

The ovary structure is the only real way that I know of to tell the differences. If you look at Paph flowers from the various sections, a person might assume that they all belong to separate genera because they look so different. But, they all have unilocular ovaries and conduplicate leaves, and molecular analysis further provides evidence that they are closely related enough to be in the same genus.

The reason why you are able to tell the difference right off the bat is that you have been looking at these flowers for so long and you know what they are. Your brain automatically makes the connection when you see them. This is just a theory of mine though, because the ovaries and the leaves are the only ways I know of to tell them apart physically.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 18, 2010)

To kind of expand on what I said...

Look at Paphs - you might say that they have waxy flowers. But, there's always the Parvis, which do not have waxy flowers. You might say they are single-flowered. But there are plenty of exceptions to that, as well. What do they all have in common? Unilocular ovaries and conduplicate leaves.

Look at Phrags - you might say they have softer-textured flowers (looking at the Micropetalums and all of those besseae hybrids). But, I wouldn't call caudatum soft-textured, and its long petals set it apart from others as well. Species from Lorifolia, Himantopetalum, etc. are quite different from both section Phrag. and section Micropetalum. What do all these have in common? Trilocular ovaries and conduplicate leaves.

Look at Mexi - this is a true weirdo because the ovary is both unilocular and trilocular. Clearly unique. But you can tell that just by looking at the leaves, which are conduplicate, but very succulent, unlike any other slipper.

Look at Cyps - you could say their flowers are soft-textured and brightly colored. But look at section Trigonopedia! Totally different right? This is a very diverse genus. But what do all of the species have in common? Trilocular ovaries and plicate leaves.

Selens look very similar to Cyps. Plicate leaves, the flowers are similar...but they have one big difference - unilocular ovaries. Selens were probably the first slippers to evolve (they are more primitive forms of Cyps).


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> Look at Mexi - this is a true weirdo because the ovary is both unilocular and trilocular. Clearly unique. But you can tell that just by looking at the leaves, which are conduplicate, but very succulent, unlike any other slipper.


I thought Mexipedium was unilocular.

I've never heard of a ovary that is both unilocular and trilocular. I am assuming that it depends on the cross section? 

...I need to bloom my plant to find out


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

smartie2000 said:


> I thought Mexipedium was unilocular.
> 
> I've never heard of a ovary that is both unilocular and trilocular. I am assuming that it depends on the cross section?
> 
> ...I need to bloom my plant to find out



Mexi ovaries are unilocular in the center, and trilocular in the ends.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Mar 19, 2010)

Kevin - it isn't just you....

When I first starting growing orchids three years ago, I often confused multi-floral paphs and phrags. I don't now, but as a total beginner, the flowers looked very similar to me. 

Not any more though.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

Multifloral Paphs and Phrags do look very similar, especially if you ignore the foliage.

Big differences are found in the staminodes, and, of course, the ovaries. But to someone who doesn't pay attention to this and has not yet seen the plants tons of times and has the names drilled into their head, definitely they would look pretty much the same. 

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is no really simple way to tell the differences between them - they're that similar. You have to get down to the nitty-gritty to see why they are different (ignoring the plant structure of course). The reason for this is that within the individual genera there is so much variation that it actually makes it difficult to tell the genera apart if you're not familiar with them (and if you don't examine stuff like the ovaries). I don't know if that makes any sense or not.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 19, 2010)

Joe has outlined everything up above BTW, at least to what I can think of.
botany all over again!

The plesiomorphic characters of subfamily Cypripedioideae include elongate stems, trilocular, and many plicate pubescent leaves. This makes Selenipedium the most basal of the group. 

From the Selenipedium evolve the ancestors of Cypripediums. Cypriediums generally have shorter leaf internodes than the Seledipedium. Cypripediums are unilocular, another step in evolution. The most derived Cypripediums have reduced stems and few leaves, such as Cyp. acaule. (I bet something like cypripedium lentiginosum are the most derived of the cyps.)

As the Slipper species become more derived they inherit conduplicate foliage and reduced stems. These synapomorphies are seen in Paph and Phrags. These two genera are closely related, which is why the traits are similar. Their ancestor likely separated and evolved as they became geographically isolated. 
Phrags probably have a reversal in locule characteristics and therefore are trilocular. The paphs remain unilocular, a trait from the Cypripediums. 
And mexipedium evolved from the ancestors of today's Phragmipedium somewhere along the line (Either it retained the unilocule from the Cypripediums, or its another reversal into a unilocular carpel in progress? We don't know the ancestor of the Mexipedium and Phragmipediums, who are sister to one another).

Aren't Paph chromosome sizes much larger than Phrag as well.

...I hate it when someone labels a photo of some hybrid of paph philippinense as Phrag caudatum. I have seen that a few times!


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

I hate to disagree with you Fren, but a couple of the things you said conflict with my sources.

Cribb (1997) and Koopowitz (2008) both state that Cyps are trilocular. Koopowitz (2008) also states that Selenipedium is unilocular. However, this does conflict with Cribb's (1998) statement that they are trilocular. I don't know who is right, and I have never looked at a cross-section of a Selenipedium ovary. Because Cribb presents evidence that the trilocular ovary is a plesiomorphic character, I am inclined to believe that Selenipedium is trilocular.

I do agree with your statement that the most derived Cyps have "reduced stems and few leaves". The section Trigonopedia was the last group to evolve in the genus.

On cytology, I have some information around here somewhere - I'll look for it.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

Okay so I really quickly flipped through one of my books and it doesn't look like Paph chromosomes are really that much bigger than Phrags, but it does vary. However, I am really tired and probably don't even know what I'm looking at. I think I'll go to bed now! I'll have a more detailed look at this tomorrow, because now you've got me curious.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> Koopowitz (2008) also states that Selenipedium is unilocular



Ugh. Koopowitz (2008) has numerous errors. I'm embarrassed for Koopowitz when I read it. How did he let that happen?

Anyway, Cribb is correct. Selenipedium have trilocular ovaries.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 19, 2010)

My memory got fuzzy...I did not look up sources. 

But I am googling and different sources state different locule numbers for cypripediums, but the majority say trilocular. I do have Harold Koopowitz "Tropical Slipper Orchids" from the library and it says Cyps are unilocular, but that is not a scientific source.
You are probably right. If cyps are trilocular that makes a portion of what I typed up above is reversed about locule evolution thoughts....

I am fairly sure that Selenipedium have trilocular ovaries.

I am nuts thinking about ovary locules at 12:30am! :rollhappy:

oh yeah...the subtending floral bract of these genera are all very different!
The subtending floral bracts of paphs are usually are not as similar to the leaves when compared to other slippers. While the other slippers have bracts that look like smaller leaves. Mexipedium has almost no floral bract.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

Cypripedium, Paphiopedilun are unilocular
Selenipedium, Phragmipedium are trilocular

See Cox et al. 2005
http://www.springerlink.com/content/np4j7772104v8x25/


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks,
I also scanned Cribb's drawings/plates from his Cyp. monograph a while ago. He drew three fused carples, but no connective tissue in the middle.
I am interpreting his drawing correctly, that makes one locule. but the drawing is too simplified.

that article I will have to read tomorrow...*yawn*!


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

smartie2000 said:


> Thanks,
> I also scanned Cribb's drawings/plates from his Cyp. monograph a while ago. He drew three fused carples, but no connective tissue in the middle.
> I am interpreting his drawing correctly, that makes one locule. but the drawing is too simplified.
> 
> that article I will have to read tomorrow...*yawn*!



Right. That's what it would be. The basal state of orchids is three-merous (thee petals, three sepals, three stigmas (corresponding to three ovary locules), three anthers). However, in most orchids, there's been a good bit of fusion or other changes over the years.

IE, in slippers: 2 sepals fused to form the synsepal, one anther turned into a staminode, the stigmas fused into one surface that is three-lobed. I know you know this already, but I'm pointing it out for our newer slipper orchid students.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Mar 19, 2010)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> I'm sure though that someone will try!



Just as I had predicted. 

I don't know that a novice would be able to wrap their mind around all of what has just been said, regardless of accuracy (what the X!FS does plicate mean, anyways?!). If you had a mind to do it, you could plow your way through a dichotomous key I suppose, if such a thing exists for all known taxa!


----------



## NYEric (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> For one thing, the plant structure is totally different. Phrags have long, sword-shaped leaves, and Paphs have thicker, wider leaves that are held closer to the ground. .


Sorry, but this is an inaccurate generalization, I have seen phrag leaves that that are indistinguishable from some large paphs. beside continental location differences the flowers are different and the chromosones are diff, thats why we dont have phragmipedilums yet.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

NYEric said:


> Sorry, but this is an inaccurate generalization, I have seen phrag leaves that that are indistinguishable from some large paphs. beside continental location differences the flowers are different and the chromosones are diff, thats why we dont have phragmipedilums yet.



I have never seen a Phrag that is not immediately distinguishable from any Paph when looking at the leaves.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

kentuckiense said:


> Cypripedium, Paphiopedilun are unilocular
> Selenipedium, Phragmipedium are trilocular
> 
> See Cox et al. 2005
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/np4j7772104v8x25/



Why does Cribb point out in his 1997 monograph on Cyps that they are trilocular?

I need to read this paper by Cox et alia.

These conflicting sources are very frustrating!


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Just as I had predicted.
> 
> I don't know that a novice would be able to wrap their mind around all of what has just been said, regardless of accuracy (what the X!FS does plicate mean, anyways?!). If you had a mind to do it, you could plow your way through a dichotomous key I suppose, if such a thing exists for all known taxa!



I'll define a couple terms to make it easier to read some of this stuff:

Plicate - The leaf is folded or pleated like a fan. E.g. in Cyps, the leaves have "ribs" from the base to the tip.

Conduplicate - The leaf is folded down the center from the base to the tip. E.g. in Paphs, the leaves have a single fold in the center.


----------



## NYEric (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> I have never seen a Phrag that is not immediately distinguishable from any Paph when looking at the leaves.


that's OK, I'm sure when you get older this wont be true. ity:


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

NYEric said:


> that's OK, I'm sure when you get older this wont be true. ity:



I'm not sure if this is age-based condescension or a playful joke about deterioration of eyesight as one ages, but I'm going to have to agree with Joe on this one. I find Phrag leaves to be easily distinguishable from similar Paph leaves (IE Phrag longifolium vs. Paph kolopakingii) based mostly upon thickness and how they are carried (and gestalt, of course). I would be genuinely interested in seeing these indistinguishable examples that you mention.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> Why does Cribb point out in his 1997 monograph on Cyps that they are trilocular?



I don't think he does. Check page 24.


----------



## Kavanaru (Mar 19, 2010)

kentuckiense said:


> I'm not sure if this is age-based condescension or a playful joke about deterioration of eyesight as one ages, but I'm going to have to agree with Joe on this one. I find Phrag leaves to be easily distinguishable from similar Paph leaves (IE Phrag longifolium vs. Paph kolopakingii) based mostly upon thickness and how they are carried (and gestalt, of course). I would be genuinely interested in seeing these indistinguishable examples that you mention.



when you are trained with both Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum that's 100% true, but I can put my hand on fire for newbies.. ask my partner and some colleagues, who cannot see the difference between both and can only separate Paphies with mottled leave (but put Paph. bellatulum and Paph. vensutum in the same pot)


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

Kavanaru said:


> when you are trained with both Phragmipedium and Paphiopedilum that's 100% true, but I can put my hand on fire for newbies.. ask my partner and some colleagues, who cannot see the difference between both and can only separate Paphies with mottled leave (but put Paph. bellatulum and Paph. vensutum in the same pot)



Oh, I can certainly see how some strap leaf Paphs could look similar to some Phrag species, no doubt. Growers new to those genera would certainly have a hard time telling the two genera apart. However, my argument is with Eric's (a person who is well acquainted with both genera) statement that he's seen Paph/Phrag foliage that are "indistinguishable" from one another.


----------



## Kavanaru (Mar 19, 2010)

ok, but I assumed the comment as a reference to someone new into slippers... in the thread it has been discussed the basics on nomenclature and so on... that's why  of course Eric should not have that problem (unless he is not wearing his glasses )..


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks for your support on the Paph/Phrag thing kentuckiense! I will check the book (The Genus Cypripedium) when I get home. I was reading it last night, but I was also very tired!

Eric, I've been doing this for 9 years (not everyone my age is inexperienced and knows nothing) and I have seen A LOT of plants in that time! I am frankly sick and tired of people assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about just because I don't have grey hair. Not all of us need a lifetime to figure things out. I'm a botany student, and I have been obsessed with these plants since I was 10. End of story. 

And please, please stop it with the belligerent comments directed at me. I don't know when you decided you don't like me, but lately you can't seem to leave me alone. We never had problems before, and I've been on this forum since 2006! Sheesh...


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

Kavanaru said:


> ok, but I assumed the comment as a reference to someone new into slippers... in the thread it has been discussed the basics on nomenclature and so on... that's why  of course Eric should not have that problem (unless he is not wearing his glasses )..



Looking back at the original post, I guess this was intended to be for both newbies and experienced growers. But there isn't really a simple way to tell the differences that you can explain to new growers, beyond the obvious differences in the leaves, growth habit, etc. When you're looking at flowers, there is so much variation in the genera that anyone who is not familiar with them will get them mixed up. That's because they all share basic floral charcteristics. That's why all were originally placed in Cypripedium. It wasn't until botanists started really looking at them that they were reclassified.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> Looking back at the original post, I guess this was intended to be for both newbies and experienced growers. But there isn't really a simple way to tell the differences that you can explain to new growers, beyond the obvious differences in the leaves, growth habit, etc. When you're looking at flowers, there is so much variation in the genera that anyone who is not familiar with them will get them mixed up. That's because they all share basic floral charcteristics. That's why all were originally placed in Cypripedium. It wasn't until botanists started really looking at them that they were reclassified.



This is what I was getting at. And, like I and others have stated before, there are some Phrags that can be easily confused with some Paphs in terms of plant structure (eg. some long-petalled Phrags and some multi-floral Paphs). I know people who have had trouble telling the difference between the long-petalled Phrag flowers and some of the Paph sanderianum and philippinense species and hybrids. Can you see how that could be confusing to a newcommer? 

So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

Kevin said:


> So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?



Not that I can think of. Because every generalization made about a genus, in terms of what a layman would be looking at, can be refuted; e.g. not all Paphs have mottled leaves, not all Phrags are long-petalled, etc. I do think that plant structure is pretty obvious, but just looking at the flowers is more complicated. Like I say, we just don't realize it because we know what a Phrag caudatum or a Paph delenatii looks like. When we see them, we immediately know what they are. That just comes with experience.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 19, 2010)

Kevin said:


> So, there really is not an easy, simple way of explaining to a newbie what the difference are, right?



After really thinking about it, I agree with you. In terms of floral characteristics, I don't think there is a single dichotomous-key-esque statement that differentiates the two.


----------



## nikv (Mar 19, 2010)

What do the taxonomists use to differentiate the two genera? Other than Paphs being "Old Word" and Phrags being "New World", there must be something that differentiates them? Otherwise, they would all be reclassified into one genus.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 19, 2010)

Thanks. So, after 38 posts, we get back to what I thought all along. I was just hoping there was a way, but it seems there isn't. Thanks for all the thoughts and discussion - I sure learned some stuff here!


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

nikv said:


> What do the taxonomists use to differentiate the two genera? Other than Paphs being "Old Word" and Phrags being "New World", there must be something that differentiates them? Otherwise, they would all be reclassified into one genus.



Well what we were discussing about the number of locules in the ovaries, as well as the distribution, and growth habit and structure, are the main things that distinguish them. There is also some molecular evidence out there to support the current classification of the species. I think this group is still somewhat poorly understood, but taxonomists are making some headway.


----------



## NYEric (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> Eric, I've been doing this for 9 years (not everyone my age is inexperienced and knows nothing) and I have seen A LOT of plants in that time! I am frankly sick and tired of people assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about just because I don't have grey hair. Not all of us need a lifetime to figure things out. I'm a botany student, and I have been obsessed with these plants since I was 10. End of story.
> 
> And please, please stop it with the belligerent comments directed at me. I don't know when you decided you don't like me, but lately you can't seem to leave me alone. We never had problems before, and I've been on this forum since 2006! Sheesh...


Age has something to do with experience but it is not all that matters. I've seen a few slipper orchids in my time and I can tell you I've seen some leave o nslippers that I thought were phrags and they were paphs. End of story. I didn't make any belligerent comment to you today and now I have to go back thru all my posts to ensure that I haven't in the past. If I offended you with my "pity" emoticom I apologise. No problem.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 19, 2010)

NYEric said:


> Age has something to do with experience but it is not all that matters. I've seen a few slipper orchids in my time and I can tell you I've seen some leave o nslippers that I thought were phrags and they were paphs. End of story. I didn't make any belligerent comment to you today and now I have to go back thru all my posts to ensure that I haven't in the past. If I offended you with my "pity" emoticom I apologise. No problem.



Okay well you were the one making remarks about age so maybe next time you should think before you speak. And I really hope you don't expect me to believe that that emoticon was not a sarcastic, passive-aggressive thing to include in your comment. If you seriously can't remember a time when you were belligerent towards me then you are just oblivious to your own comments. But I will speak no more of it here. I don't want to fight with you, especially not in public. If you have anything more to say to me then please send me a PM because I will not reply to you here.


----------



## VAAlbert (Mar 19, 2010)

*it's not so tough*

All of the conduplicate guys are much more similar to each other, IMHO, than the numerous genera of oncidioid orchids. I segregated Mexipedium from Phrag, but later sunk Mex and Phrag into Paph to reflect this. For the record, I prefer keeping Mexipedium separate since it can be -- but you can accept any classification you want; Mex, traditional Phrag, and traditional Paph are each monophyletic.... and form a monophyletic group together relative to Cyp and Selen. I just made Paph names available for many Phrag species, as well as for Mex, in case others would prefer to call them all Paphs.... like some people would rather have a whole bunch of Oncidiums (or whatever the earliest legal name is) instead of a bunch of genera. Yes, molecular data currently support Mex as distinct, or as a Phrag if you like. That conclusion was based on 2 DNA regions .... and I'm not yet convinced exactly how Mex is related to Paph and Phrag, so my lab is investigating this further with a whole bunch of genes. Mex and Phrag chromosomes are considerably smaller than those of Paphs. Yes, Phrag is trilocular, Mex is at the tips & uni at midsection, and Paph is unilocular. Cyp is uni, Selen is tri. But there are three carpels there no matter what; the locularity business is just a matter of the degree of their fusion. 

Yours,

Vic Albert.
http://biology.buffalo.edu/Faculty/Albert/albert.html


----------



## NYEric (Mar 19, 2010)

parvi_17 said:


> And I really hope you don't expect me to believe that that emoticon was not a sarcastic, passive-aggressive thing to include in your comment. If you seriously can't remember a time when you were belligerent towards me *then you are just oblivious to your own comments*.


Talk about sarcastic and passive agressive! 



parvi_17 said:


> But I will speak no more of it here. I don't want to fight with you, especially not in public. If you have anything more to say to me then please send me a PM because I will not reply to you here.



Ok I would but since you've chosen not to accept PM's from me you're obviously having a hissy fit and should pull your panties back up. If you don't want to air your issues in public, dont! You don't mean enough for me to get very upset about though so I'll just reiterate what I said and state, "Peace man."


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 19, 2010)

...I was going so say that we could seperate phrags and paphs into several other genera if we wanted to. I am glad we did not, otherwise we be just as convoluted as the Oncidium or Cattleya alliance.
(I bet some taxonomists hate orchids because so many unneccessary genera were created...or so many similar species)

Phrags and paphs don't breed into each other (at least not very easily). That is one good reason to accept them as sperate genera. But assessing the ability for hybridization is not used so often in botany when compared to zoology. Of course there were other characteristics already discussed that are more important.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 20, 2010)

NYEric said:


> Ok I would but since you've chosen not to accept PM's from me you're obviously having a hissy fit and should pull your panties back up.


Eric, please refer to rule 8 at http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18. While Joe's messages were certainly confrontational and could be considered insulting, you stooped to a direct ad hominem attack and insulted his masculinity. Consider this to be your first warning.

Joe, I understand that you are frustrated, but there are better ways to handle things. Referring to someone as "oblivious" isn't one of the ways. So, again, consider this a first warning to you.

I think I can speak for the rest of the moderating staff when I say that I certainly enjoy a good, solid discussion of slipper orchid biology, but only when the discourse remains civilized. So, I'd like to highly encourage both parties of this disagreement to cease with the back-and-forth and get back on topic so we can continue what I would certainly describe as a very interesting and thought-provoking thread. I love it when we have a topic that requires us to pull the books off the shelves and look up journal articles.

Let's get back to that and do it in a civilized fashion.


----------



## kentuckiense (Mar 20, 2010)

VAAlbert said:


> All of the conduplicate guys are much more similar to each other, IMHO, than the numerous genera of oncidioid orchids. I segregated Mexipedium from Phrag, but later sunk Mex and Phrag into Paph to reflect this. For the record, I prefer keeping Mexipedium separate since it can be -- but you can accept any classification you want; Mex, traditional Phrag, and traditional Paph are each monophyletic.... and form a monophyletic group together relative to Cyp and Selen. I just made Paph names available for many Phrag species, as well as for Mex, in case others would prefer to call them all Paphs.... like some people would rather have a whole bunch of Oncidiums (or whatever the earliest legal name is) instead of a bunch of genera. Yes, molecular data currently support Mex as distinct, or as a Phrag if you like. That conclusion was based on 2 DNA regions .... and I'm not yet convinced exactly how Mex is related to Paph and Phrag, so my lab is investigating this further with a whole bunch of genes. Mex and Phrag chromosomes are considerably smaller than those of Paphs. Yes, Phrag is trilocular, Mex is at the tips & uni at midsection, and Paph is unilocular. Cyp is uni, Selen is tri. But there are three carpels there no matter what; the locularity business is just a matter of the degree of their fusion.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> ...



Thanks for the input, Dr. Albert. I wonder how much furor there would be Mex, Paph, and Phrag were all combined into one genus. Obviously, it is biologically sound, but I'm guessing some of us here would take to the streets and flip over cars. Opinions?


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2010)

smartie2000;208108(I bet some taxonomists hate orchids because so many unneccessary genera were created...or so many similar species)[/QUOTE said:


> Well, who created all these genera in the first place, if it wasn't taxonimists? Some taxonomists might hate orchids, but what about what some orchid hobbiests think of taxonomists for making so many genera, and then constantly changing them up?
> 
> So, I started this thread, partly for myself, and partly because I was asked this question, and I thought I would ask it here, to use this vast knowledge to get a good answer, instead of replying with 'sorry, I don't know'. I was talking with my Dad today, and he does not know orchids, but is kind of familiar because of my interest. I asked him if he could tell the difference between the Paphs and Phrags I had in bloom right now. He had no clue. And rightly so - there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference, apart from being so familar with all the species, that you almost have them memorized. So, I guess I'll have to tell this person that I really don't know the answer, and not only do I not know, there doesn't seem to be an answer.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 20, 2010)

I think they do have reason to change up some things. Sometimes the taxonomists don't get it right the first time. I always did think Laelia purpurata looked too much like a Cattleya. I am glad they made that change, it is Cattleya purpurata now and it will take time to adjust.

As well much of the changes were due to new methods and technologies such as molecular phylogenetics. This is the use of structure of the DNA to provide insight on the evolutionary relationships of the species. This recent reclassification are mostly based on this. Some of the history seen in DNA, may not be morphologically seen. There are reversal of characters in plant evolution that make morphology tricky to use. This is where DNA comes in.

I believe sometimes mitochondrial DNA is used, and this DNA is only passed from the female parent. For example you would have your mother's mitochondrial DNA and not any of your fathers. Over long time spans mitochondrial DNA would mutate due to repeated replications. Scientists can trace the evolutionary relationships of an organism using this DNA. 

But you must have valid species specimen for this analysis, otherwise there will be mistakes (and there were mistakes!). If you took a Paph bellatulum, and it was really a Paph wenshanense look-alike (natural hybrid of concolor and bellatulum) your results would be very different, because all mitochondrial DNA was from the pod parent of the initial natural hybridizing (could have been either concolor or bellatulum). 

Molecular methods are beyond my scope of knowledge. Many genes are used, and types of DNA

One of my previous botany professor was not a fan of Orchidaceae, who's interest is molecular phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. I never got to asking her why, but I have guesses...ironic that she is the one that taught me enough to type in this thread. But she was so wrong about the biology of Cypripediums!


----------



## Rick (Mar 20, 2010)

Kevin said:


> So, I started this thread, partly for myself, and partly because I was asked this question, and I thought I would ask it here, to use this vast knowledge to get a good answer, instead of replying with 'sorry, I don't know'. I was talking with my Dad today, and he does not know orchids, but is kind of familiar because of my interest. I asked him if he could tell the difference between the Paphs and Phrags I had in bloom right now. He had no clue. And rightly so - there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference, apart from being so familar with all the species, that you almost have them memorized.




Without focusing on the exceptions I think you can go back to one of Tom's posts (with enhancement).

Cyps - generally found in temperate-subarctic regions of northern hemisphere, plicate (pleated) leaves, mostly deciduous in winter.

Paphs - tropical Asia and South Pacific. Conduplicate leaves, normally wide, never grass like.

Phrags - tropical South America. Conduplicate leaves, normally narrow, many are grass like.

This will get you out of trouble most of the time.

BTW I believe that if you go back far enough into the evolution of the taxonomy of plants (somewhere in the 1800's) all slipper flowers from all the primary groups were classified as Cyps. The nomenclature splitting into the primary genera we see now I believe happened late in the 1800's.

It's probably important to note that taxonomy is very dynamic with the names of plants and animals changing all the time.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2010)

This was my original question:


Kevin said:


> What are the main features of the flowers and plant that set them apart from each other?





Rick said:


> Without focusing on the exceptions I think you can go back to one of Tom's posts (with enhancement).
> 
> Cyps - generally found in temperate-subarctic regions of northern hemisphere, plicate (pleated) leaves, mostly deciduous in winter.
> 
> ...



This, I knew, and is easily explained, but it says nothing about the flowers. Most photos you see of orchids, slipper orchids included, do not show the plant (Thanks NYEric for insisting on whole plant photos - you're not the only one who likes this). So, if only looking at a photo, which most of the time would only show the flower, how do you tell the difference? The answer, again, seems to be there is no answer.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2010)

smartie2000 said:


> I think they do have reason to change up some things. Sometimes the taxonomists don't get it right the first time. I always did think Laelia purpurata looked too much like a Cattleya. I am glad they made that change, it is Cattleya purpurata now and it will take time to adjust.



Yes, I'm sure they have a reason, but it almost seems like a make-work project and status for some. As for the species you mentioned, at least it's not a Sophronitis anymore! So, I guess that taxonomist got it wrong? And the one who is calling it a Cattleya is right? At present, I am completely confused by the long-petalled Phrag species. I need to see a name beside a photo to know which is which. I have a Phrag wallisii, which is not that any more, but is warszewiczianum, which, I think, used to be the name for another species. And who decided that the Phrags should have one species called warszewiczianum, and another called warszewiczii? Isn't that more confusing? 

Anyway, this was not mean to be a taxonomy thread - I just wanted a straight-forward explanation of what you are looking at when you see a Phrag flower and a Paph flower side-by-side to tell which is which.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 20, 2010)

The reason they had to change was because the type specimen (the first plant collected for description and then stored in a herbarium) of warszewiczianum was not really a warszewiczianum. They made a mistake and linked this plant to the dark pouched variety.

Phrag wallisii is not a name used for another species anymore. wallisii is a synonym of warszewiczianum. This is the Phrag with the lighter coloured pouch, often creamy coloured. (wallisii may stick to me for horticultural purposes, because I cannot mix up this way) Phrag warszewiczianum was described earlier than wallisii, so the epithet warszewiczianum was honored.

Phrag powowii was then used as the new description in 2004 for the darker coloured Phrag after the discovery of the error. However, I noticed recently Phrag warscewiczii is currently used. I looked it up and "warscewiczii" was used in 1873, when Phrags were classfied as Selenipediums. Due to honoring of the first discriptor, warscewiczii is the epithet should be the name used in scientific literature. It was not neccesary to coin the name Phrag powowii, because an epithet name already existed.
I prefer to use popowii for horticultural purposes, because there will be no accidental confusion, popowii is not similarly named to any other long petalled Phrag.

In this case name changes reflected the honoring of the first non-errorous descriptors of the plant. Scientists work their entire life, and they do deserve this right.
Correct me if I am wrong about anything above. This case is more twisted than the usual.

In conclusion, in science the acceptable names should be:
Phrag warszewiczianum is light coloured 
Phrag warscewiczii is dark coloured

There are other differences between the two besides colour that makes then separate species.

If you dont want to be confused horticulturally, I suggest not using Phrag warszewiczianum as a name. I am not sure everyone would agree with me.


----------



## Kavanaru (Mar 20, 2010)

smartie2000 said:


> ...
> 
> If you dont want to be confused horticultrally, I suggest not using Phrag warszewiczianum as a name. I am not sure everyone would agree with me.



totally in agreement, as long as the difference between horticulture and taxonomy is kept.  Within the orchid world i very often see that people complain about the work of taxonomists and botanists, like putting horticulture as a priority when naming plants, which is compeltelly wrong... comments liek "how can I continua following the correctname of my Cattleya Guarianthe Sophronitis Laelia Purpurata or whatever it is called now or tomorrow!!?" (no kidding, this was copied and translated from another forum!) are totally ridiculous... IMO (P.S.- No intention to offend anyone here or on other forums with my opinion!)


----------



## Rick (Mar 20, 2010)

Kevin said:


> This was my original question:
> So, if only looking at a photo, which most of the time would only show the flower, how do you tell the difference? The answer, again, seems to be there is no answer.



As long as you are strictly looking at flower photos you are 100% correct.

Looking up some old names was kind of interesting.

In the 1890's Paphs and Phrags were just called Cyps pretty universally, however the history for Phrag sargentianum is funny:

in 1901 Kraenzlin called it Cypripedium sargentianum
in 1897 Hallier called it Paphiopedilum sargentianum
in 1900 Rolfe called it Phragmipedium sargentianum
in 1898 Pfitzer called it Phragmopedilum sargentianum

The very common Phrag longifolium also went through a pretty crazy naming history:

It was a Cyp as early as 1852 to 1898
With some overlap with Paph around 1892.
It also spent some time as Selenepedium 1869 to 1888
Phragmopedilum starting around 1898
and ending up as Phragmipedium as early as 1903

Fortunately the total number of slipper species (of all 5 present genera) is very small compared to other orchid genera, so you can memorize the flower pictures easier.


----------



## Lance Birk (Mar 21, 2010)

Aside from all the hyper-ventilating in this thread only Rick has come close to the answer....

It is simply a matter of geography.

All the known lady's slipper orchids are separated by regions.

End of story.


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2010)

Lance Birk said:


> Aside from all the hyper-ventilating in this thread only Rick has come close to the answer....
> 
> It is simply a matter of geography.
> 
> ...



However, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander from the taxonomist point of view.

There presently are "Bulbophyllum" species present in tropical Asia, Africa, and South America.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 21, 2010)

Lance Birk said:


> Aside from all the hyper-ventilating in this thread only Rick has come close to the answer....
> 
> It is simply a matter of geography.
> 
> ...



I thought the story ended a while back, when it was established that there is no way to tell them apart by looking at them. How can you tell geography when looking at a plant and/or flower? And besides, Paphs and some Cyps both are from Asia, although not in the same habitat. Phrags and Selenipedium are both found in South America.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 21, 2010)

nah...there are ways by looking at them (without slicing up the ovaries.). Even the root habit of these plants are different.
there are just plants that have exceptions to the general discription, just like in all plant genera.
Yes it takes some experience to ID quickly, but not a lot of it. You are not going to mix a schilimi up with delenatii I hope.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 21, 2010)

smartie2000 said:


> Yes it takes some experience to ID quickly, but not a lot of it. You are not going to mix a schilimi up with delenatii I hope.



No, probably no one will mistake one for the other, but how do you tell that the delenatii is a Paph and not a Phrag - looking at the flower alone. The plant habit is a give-away, as no Phrags have mottled leaves.


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2010)

Kevin said:


> I thought the story ended a while back, when it was established that there is no way to tell them apart by looking at them. How can you tell geography when looking at a plant and/or flower? And besides, Paphs and some Cyps both are from Asia, although not in the same habitat. Phrags and Selenipedium are both found in South America.




Looking at a lot of flower pictures you could play an odds game.

1) 90%+ of cyps have large balloon shaped pouches (lips). A couple species like C. gutta have rimless bucket like pouches.

2) 90% of paphs have rimless bucket shaped pouches. The parvis (about 10% of paph species) have balloon like pouches like the bulk of cyps.

3) 80% of phrags have a bucket shaped pouch, but with a "liner" all around the inner rim of the pouch. Granted this liner is often hard to see in standard frontal orchid porn flower photos. Besseae, Kovachii, and the schlimii group are notable exceptions with more cyp like balloon shaped pouches. However besseae and kovachii flowers are so distinctive and famous now they should be easy to remember.

I saw a previous mention of how schlimii/fisheri flower pics could be confused with delenatii/vietnamense (or for that matter Cyp. reginae) if just looking strictly at flower pictures, but we are only talking 5 of the ~150 or so species of Cyp/Paph/Phrag.

To me, all selenipedium flowers look like cyp flowers, but its rare to ever see a pick of a selenipedium flower anyway. So I wouldn't sweat those odds.

Mexipedium has a cyp like balloon shaped flower, but with the exception of say delenatii alba, (or any albino cyps), the odds would be good that you would be able to spot this one in a photo line up.

If you get to see the plants in person to look at flowers from several angles and also see the plant/leaf habit your odds can go way up.


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2010)

One thing that popped up in Kevins last post that I think is actually pretty cool is that the Phrag. schlimii/fisheri, Paph delenatiii/vietnamense, Cyp. reginae flower model is universally successful for attracting pollinators in N. America, S.American and Vietnam.

I think a good question would be what the pollinators are, and note how the flower size is considerably different from one species to the next.


----------



## VAAlbert (Mar 22, 2010)

You should probably add Mexipedium to this list, even though the petals are narrow. Probably all bee-pollinated.

Best,

V.


----------



## Lance Birk (Mar 22, 2010)

In order to properly identify a species it is necessary to gather ALL pertinent information. "Proper" identification can never be attained from a flower without an ovary, or without the plant, or from a single clue, or whatever.

This is why it is so important to obtain field data earned by personal explorations. Viewing bits and pieces, and old, deteriorated, brown parts of once-whole materials from ancient herb sheets is so problematic. If you cannot obtain proper habitat data you cannot just guess at the identity of a plant. (Hello CITES!)

Viewing a flower from a plant of un-proved ancestry is simply an exercise in futility. It cannot be done, yet many here continue to speculate.

As I said: It is simply a matter of geography, .... when you have ALL the parts of the puzzle.

And THIS is compounded when captive plants of unknown origin are seed propagated, ...and ESPECIALLY so when when plants like P. delenatii and the variety Dunkle are crossed. Or when P. lowii types are crossed or when it is crossed with P. haynaldianum, and when all the P. bullenianum types are crossed, etc., etc., etc.

This problem shows no indication of EVER getting simpler, only more convoluted.


----------



## parvi_17 (Mar 22, 2010)

Wow I missed a lot in this thread! I decided to take a break from the forum and cool down, before things got out of hand (I never received your PMs Eric).

I would like to thank both Victor and Lance for chiming in - I was hoping some of the professionals would contribute to this discussion.

BUT I don't really have any more to say on the matter. Interesting thread at any rate.

Oh, one thing actually: I can confirm that Cribb states that Cyps are trilocular in his monograph, on page 27. So I guess this is a typo? I've never done a Cyp ovary cross-section myself, but I can accept based on what has been said here, as well as the drawings in Cribb's book, that they are in fact unilocular.


----------



## Rick (Mar 22, 2010)

Lance Birk said:


> In order to properly identify a species it is necessary to gather ALL pertinent information. "Proper" identification can never be attained from a flower without an ovary, or without the plant, or from a single clue, or whatever.




Very true Lance. The operative word in your post is proper, but it looks like from the earliest post that he's just looking for a quick and dirty guide to roughly ID internet pics with his dad. We just need close enough for hand grenades.


----------

