# Question to Mr. Braem



## dodidoki (Aug 21, 2011)

Dear Prof.!
You mention in your book sugiyamanum and intaniae as artefitial hybrid.
My question: is there any evidence suppoting this theory and what is the reason to think them hybrids?


----------



## Roth (Aug 21, 2011)

dodidoki said:


> Dear Prof.!
> You mention in your book sugiyamanum and intaniae as artefitial hybrid.
> My question: is there any evidence suppoting this theory and what is the reason to think them hybrids?



I have seen some thousands intaniae, with clumps having up to 20 growths, and rhizome that proved they bloomed many times before, so it is clearly not an artificial hybrid. The collectors sell those in Sulawesii for about a dollar a plant, and they are really wild plants. Wait for Guido opinion ( it is true that whilst the plants are very common, nearly all die in cultivation after a short time, so maybe he did not have the opportunity to see many in bloom). What is very strange is its similarity with ooii in many respects.

Sugiyamanum is another real species, it comes usually in two types, one close to Ranau, with narrower dorsal, and one with a wider dorsal, much bigger leaves with reddish at their base, but exceedingly soft (much softer than even sangii) at the same location the collector gets ooii. Having waited that collector twice, I know too that they are really wild plants. Dendrobium piranha occurs at the same spot too. There has been selfing of sugiyamanum that bloomed, and they were true to type.

The problem with those plants, intaniae is commonly available from the wild, but dies very quickly in cultivation, sugiyamanum is rare in the wild, parnatanum is not showy at all ( I have seen some dozen plants of parnatanum, from the wild and fresh clumps, some in bloom, in Thailand), so there is little opportunity for Guido or any taxonomist to see several examples of those species in bloom. Not to mention that Ayub Parnata has the justified reputation of selling hybrids as species at a point ( though paph gigantifolium came originally from Ayub Parnata and proved to be a genuine species). You have got in the past people who masqueraded artificial hybrids as genuine species, like stonei stictopetalum, glaucophyllum var. album ( that came from a pot plant nursery near Dusseldorf, specialized in Pinnochio pot plants...), dixlerianum ( from Hans Hermans nursery in fact, it is a barbatum-Naudiae hybrid crossed onto a wild sukhakhulii, and he made after the description a fortune selling some 'dixlerianum' to Japan), the Paphiopedilum xGrussianum ( that came from an attempt by the Kunming Botanical Garden to flasks species and hybrids, they did that cross, and they still have a few dozen clumps of that hybrid), etc... It is very hard to assess what comes from the wild and what comes not. I would say that, if you can catch the real collector to question him, and know the price he sells the plants, you can rule out an artificial hybrid origin. The collector in Sulawesii charges 10.000rupiah by complete plants, which is more or less a dollar ( more today, less two years ago), and he gets them from the wild, so no one would make flasking of an hybrid, grow several thousands of them up to 8-20 growths plants, break all the roots, and sell them a dollar ( even the local pot plant market gives much higher prices). As a conclusion, it is really a wild species.


----------



## poozcard (Aug 21, 2011)

interesting! Khun Roth


----------



## Braem (Aug 21, 2011)

dodidoki said:


> Dear Prof.!
> You mention in your book sugiyamanum and intaniae as artefitial hybrid.
> My question: is there any evidence suppoting this theory and what is the reason to think them hybrids?


there provenance .. and the fact that I have no evidence that these "items" have ever been found in the wild. Some people claim to have seen them. "Seeing clumps" is one thing. For all these things, I want to see in situ pictures from a reliable source. Than, I will reconsider. Xavier's opion is interesting: "lots in the wild ... but they die quickly in cultivation". That is new to me for Paphiopedilum. About the provenance ... I am not going to publish names, but the first plants that we described originated from an Indonesian dealer who is KNOWN to offer hybrids as wild collected species.


----------



## dodidoki (Aug 21, 2011)

Thanks, very interesting.


----------



## dodidoki (Aug 21, 2011)

Thanks for reply, waiting for in situ photoes.


----------



## Roth (Aug 21, 2011)

Braem said:


> there provenance .. and the fact that I have no evidence that these "items" have ever been found in the wild. Some people claim to have seen them. "Seeing clumps" is one thing. For all these things, I want to see in situ pictures from a reliable source. Than, I will reconsider. Xavier's opion is interesting: "lots in the wild ... but they die quickly in cultivation". That is new to me for Paphiopedilum. About the provenance ... I am not going to publish names, but the first plants that we described originated from an Indonesian dealer who is KNOWN to offer hybrids as wild collected species.



There are in-situ photos of sugiyamanum, I have seen them once on a japanese website once... But again they can be staged ( like the insitu photos of ooii, or Averyanov' photos of vietnamense in the wild).

For lots of the plants die quickly in cultivation, well... it is not big news. The plants do not make a good root system (big leaf, nearly no wild roots to support them), and either they die before they make a good root system, or they restart as seedling-sized plants ( like many wild collected sanderianums). intaniae apparently comes from an exceedingly wet area, the roots are entangled in tree fern roots and moss, and they need a lot of water, the leaves can be up to 80cm+, and the whole clumps when they are collected have no more than 10-20 roots, broken at 5cm from the rhizome. The roots are always hollow because of the dehydratation. The plants cannot pump enough water to survive, and usually they are too weak to survive.

A photo from this spring wild collected intaniae here:







Big plants, shiny soft leaves ...

And the roots:






To restart a plant like that, good luck :evil:

That's why most of the collected plants never bloom in cultivation, they die before (same for zieckianum, many sanderianum, many gigantifoliums...). There are not that many good growers, and the good growers anyway have to be lucky enough to get good plants, or it is a failure.


----------



## Ray (Aug 21, 2011)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why do "clumps" prove it's not a hybrid?

I just divided a 30-growth "clump" of Paph. Prim Puddle, and I'm reasonably sure it's a hybrid.


----------



## Braem (Aug 21, 2011)

Ray said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why do "clumps" prove it's not a hybrid?
> 
> I just divided a 30-growth "clump" of Paph. Prim Puddle, and I'm reasonably sure it's a hybrid.


You are right, "clumps" do not prove it isn't a hybrid.


----------



## Braem (Aug 21, 2011)

Roth said:


> There are in-situ photos of sugiyamanum, I have seen them once on a japanese website once... But again they can be staged ( like the insitu photos of ooii, or Averyanov' photos of vietnamense in the wild).
> 
> For lots of the plants die quickly in cultivation, well... it is not big news. The plants do not make a good root system (big leaf, nearly no wild roots to support them), and either they die before they make a good root system, or they restart as seedling-sized plants ( like many wild collected sanderianums). intaniae apparently comes from an exceedingly wet area, the roots are entangled in tree fern roots and moss, and they need a lot of water, the leaves can be up to 80cm+, and the whole clumps when they are collected have no more than 10-20 roots, broken at 5cm from the rhizome. The roots are always hollow because of the dehydratation. The plants cannot pump enough water to survive, and usually they are too weak to survive.
> 
> ...


Well this was (is) the same with stonei and all other plants from these conditions. That is the "art" of a good cultivator to get these plants started again by giving them the right conditions. But that is not any proof for intaniae being a species or a hybrid.


----------



## ronan (Aug 21, 2011)

any picture of this Dendro pirahana?


----------



## dodidoki (Aug 21, 2011)

My opinion is that sugiyamanum is valid species, its habitat, where grows too wide to be a hybrid and populations are very similar in spite of geographical distance.
Intaniae??? Don't know. Now I have a new one, leaves remind me a wild collected plant but it has strong new roots. Otherwise it is true, intaniae flower has very suspicous staminode reminds me parishii( I 've only seen two pics)


----------



## Rick (Aug 21, 2011)

ronan said:


> any picture of this Dendro pirahana?




This one is in my Orchids of Borneo series. I think both photo and drawing.

I really have tooooo many other orchid projects in motion to take on another plant.

But if this one became available, I doubt if I could control myself.


----------



## Braden (Aug 21, 2011)

This information is very interesting.
Thanks.


----------



## NYEric (Aug 21, 2011)

Welcome to the forum from NYC. 
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9729&page=62
for reference.


----------



## Hakone (Aug 22, 2011)

Hello NYEric,

thanks for sharing, do you have Photo of sugiyamanum album :drool:


----------



## NYEric (Aug 22, 2011)

No, that's the only time I've seen sugiyamanum.


----------



## Hakone (Aug 22, 2011)

another from Olaf

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2658


----------



## NYEric (Aug 22, 2011)

Lot's of interesting bloom photos in that link. thanks for digging it up.


----------



## gonewild (Aug 22, 2011)

Ray said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why do "clumps" prove it's not a hybrid?
> 
> I just divided a 30-growth "clump" of Paph. Prim Puddle, and I'm reasonably sure it's a hybrid.



I think his implication that the clumps prove it is a wild plant is because of the selling price and the sellers access to wild plants. Not likely that someone will grow a plant to a large clump expending the time and money and sell for $1 when wild plant clumps are available for that price.

Logic leads to the assumption the clumps are wild, but is logic fact or theory in this case?


----------



## T120 (Aug 22, 2011)

Averyanov' photos of vietnamense in the wild staged? Can someone explain please!?


----------



## kentuckiense (Aug 22, 2011)

T120 said:


> Averyanov' photos of vietnamense in the wild staged? Can someone explain please!?


Check the bottom of this page:
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13442


----------



## Howzat (Aug 24, 2011)

I was waiting for my intaniaeX wilhelminae to open its flower. Back in 2002 I was at Ayub Parnata's place and was given a couple of seed pods. lowiiXesquirolei and intaniaeXwilhelminae by Mr Parnata.
Last year the lowiiXesquirolei flowered and I registerd it as Paph Ayub Parnata after he gave me the permission. One of the intaniaeXwilhelminae is about to flower (perhaps within 1-2 weeks), I will post it here when it happens. I could see the Ayub Parnata's lowii's, gigantifolium, kolopakingii, wilhelminae and intaniae's were certainly wild collected . You can see from the leaves (ragged and dirty looking) an attribute that those plants were wild collected.
Clumps does not mean coming from the wild. But clumps in that condition are certainly wild collected.
Maybe I should ask Prof Braem, what should I register the plant intaniae x wilhelminae, or intaniaeXpraestan or intaniae Xglanduliferum??
praestan is not recognised by OrchidWiz. The old wilhelminae as Ayub knew (like praestan with very dark leaf and reddish base) was renamed by Cribb in 1998 as just praestan (???). As it is, the gardinerii is now named wilhelminae by Cribb but still gardinerii by Dr Fowlei.


----------



## Braem (Aug 24, 2011)

Howzat said:


> I was waiting for my intaniaeX wilhelminae to open its flower. Back in 2002 I was at Ayub Parnata's place and was given a couple of seed pods. lowiiXesquirolei and intaniaeXwilhelminae by Mr Parnata.
> Last year the lowiiXesquirolei flowered and I registerd it as Paph Ayub Parnata after he gave me the permission. One of the intaniaeXwilhelminae is about to flower (perhaps within 1-2 weeks), I will post it here when it happens. I could see the Ayub Parnata's lowii's, gigantifolium, kolopakingii, wilhelminae and intaniae's were certainly wild collected . You can see from the leaves (ragged and dirty looking) an attribute that those plants were wild collected.
> Clumps does not mean coming from the wild. But clumps in that condition are certainly wild collected.
> Maybe I should ask Prof Braem, what should I register the plant intaniae x wilhelminae, or intaniaeXpraestan or intaniae Xglanduliferum??
> praestan is not recognised by OrchidWiz. The old wilhelminae as Ayub knew (like praestan with very dark leaf and reddish base) was renamed by Cribb in 1998 as just praestan (???). As it is, the gardinerii is now named wilhelminae by Cribb but still gardinerii by Dr Fowlei.


Just keep it as wilhelminiae ... Of cours ethat entire compex is very difficult 

As 50 to 70 % of orchid hybrids are registered as something they are not, it really doesn't matter as what you register the plant. And as the seed comes from Parnata, it could have been anything. So just give it a name and register it if you wish, OrchidWizis not a taxonomic authority. P. wilhelminiae is recognised by the RHS ... praestans is recognised by the RHS and glanduliferum is ???? but is recognised by the RHS (if I am not mistaken)


----------

