# Phrag. besseae discovery stories



## Mahon (Oct 29, 2006)

NYEric said:


> Remember, Phrag besseae wasn't in bloom when it was found.



The first known record of _Phrag. besseae_ was made by Cal Dodson, I believe in 1980 (the species was described by Dodson and Kuhn in 1981). A cliff side covered in red flowers was suspected by residents to be Begonias. Dodson took a closer look, and discovered that the plants were in fact a new red _Phragmipedium_, rather than being Begonias. The species was later found in Ecuador and I have heard rumor of it being in Columbia as well. 

-Pat


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 29, 2006)

Mahon said:


> The first known record of _Phrag. besseae_ was made by Cal Dodson, I believe in 1980 (the species was described by Dodson and Kuhn in 1981). A cliff side covered in red flowers was suspected by residents to be Begonias. Dodson took a closer look, and discovered that the plants were in fact a new red _Phragmipedium_, rather than being Begonias. The species was later found in Ecuador and I have heard rumor of it being in Columbia as well.
> 
> -Pat


 
This is not the story I have read of the discovery of besseae. I believe it was gathered, out of bloom, from the side of the road by Elizabeth Locke Besse. It was taken to Selby where it bloomed red. Anyone else want to confirm this?


----------



## Mycorrhizae (Oct 29, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> This is not the story I have read of the discovery of besseae. I believe it was gathered, out of bloom, from the side of the road by Elizabeth Locke Besse. It was taken to Selby where it bloomed red. Anyone else want to confirm this?



That's the way I always heard it - Norris Powell's "embellished" version notwithstanding. It was my understanding Ms. Besse and her cohorts thought they had found the first known specimens of Phrag. schlimii to exist on the east side of the Andes, and were totally surprised after returning to Selby when the collected specimens actually bloomed.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 30, 2006)

I guess it's true what they say, "Knowledge is a powerfull thing", but Pat more importantly learn this, " A _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing." Eric.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 4, 2006)

First of all, I do stand corrected... I just got off the phone with Cal Dodson, and has clarified the story to me. Harry Luther, Elizabeth (Liz) Besse, and Joe Halton did in fact find the species first in this situation; Cal Dodson rediscovered the species in nature, but in Guarumales, Ecuador. 



SlipperFan said:


> I've heard that story about besseae, also. I've also heard that, sure, she picked it up along side the road -- from one of the vendor-farmers there -- that besseaes don't grow along side a road.



Whoever came up with the story of the group buying from a "vendor-farmer" is mis-informed, especially since their initial finding is a plant in situ, in bloom, and photographed. That is how the type for _Phrag. besseae_ was determined. There is also a funny story of how _Phrag. besseae_ was found by Liz...  

The first plants of _Phrag. besseae_ were found by three people... Elizabeth Besse, Harry Luther, and Joe Halton. The plants of this red-flowering _Phragmipedium_ were in fact *in bloom* along a roadside. A single herbarium specimen and pickled flower were identified as _Phrag. schlimii_ when brought back to SEL (The Marie Selby Herbarium). Dodson was then given a photograph of the unknown taxon, and the decision was made to describe the red _Phragmipedium_ as a new species after Liz Besse. Dodson and Kuhn described it in November of 1981... the illustration of the type for _Phrag. besseae_ was made off an herbarium specimen that was flattened, so it had a keen resemblance to _Phrag. schlimii_, except that the countries of origin are incorrect. Elizabeth Besse switched the type locality for the description around with another city visited in Peru. If people were to visit the type locality on that description of _Phrag. besseae_, they would not find a single plant of it anywhere, as it is in the other city. 

*Luther, Dalton, and Besse did not think they discovered Phrag. schlimii in Peru, as they were in Tarapoto. Phrag. schlimii is found way far north in Columbia, and I think it has also been more recently found in northern Ecuador... their herbarium specimen and accompanying pickled flower was identified as Phrag. schlimii.*

Also, they collected about 20 plants. Twelve to thirteen of the plants remained here at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, while three plants were sold in the auction at the Orchid Ball. They went for $1,700 a piece. Another plant was given to a grower in Wyoming. 

But this is not all... Werner Hopp collected in 1921 a red flowering _Phrag. schlimii_ in the region of Mocoa (eastern Andes), and is suspected to be _Phrag. besseae_. The material was bombed during the war. 

In 1960, the first confirmed sighting of _Phrag. besseae_ was confirmed. Angel Andreeta saw from a distance a colony of _Phrag. besseae_ in bloom. He was unable to get closer to them. The area was later searched, and _Phrag. besseae_ is in fact located in the area he was looking at. 

Then there is _Phrag. d'allesandroi_, found in 1985 by Dennis D'Allesandro... this species is located in Zamora, Ecuador. Dennis unfortunately told of his site, and they were all collected by the local botanical garden. The difference between _Phrag. besseae_ and _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is the more yellow coloration in the petals which droop, the non-stolonous plants, two extra chromosomes, and distribution (which is the most important factor on determining _Phrag. besseae_ from _Phrag. dallesandroi_). Also, this variety produces more seed pods than typical _Phrag. besseae_, and is suspected to be self-pollinating.

_Phrag. dallesandroi_ is a seperate species primarily on the fact of its distribution. The range for _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is about 500 miles up and down Ecuador, including the population in Zamora. If it were to be a subspecies, then the distribution would be limited to a smaller area, coming out from populations of _Phrag. besseae_, but instead, _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is located in the middle of the _Phrag. besseae_ populations. 

Also, I have seen many times the mention of _Phrag. besseae_ var. _paute_. I assume these are referring to the plants which come from Paute, Ecuador. The _Phrag. besseae_ which originate from Paute are our typical _Phrag. besseae_, there is no difference between our common cultivated _Phrag. besseae_ and those found in Paute, Ecuador. 

I hope this information is quite useful to you all, as it is the complete story. 

-Pat


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 4, 2006)

Interesting. Thanks!


----------



## Marco (Nov 5, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I guess it's true what they say, "Knowledge is a powerfull thing", but Pat more importantly learn this, " A _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing." Eric.



dude i couldn't agree with you more!


----------



## Mahon (Nov 5, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I guess it's true what they say, "Knowledge is a powerfull thing", but Pat more importantly learn this, " A _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing." Eric.
> 
> 
> Marco said:
> ...




   HEH?
This is a very true saying, I too agree... if we weren't talking about flowers. But since we are discussing flowers, this is irrelevant to anything going on. I never saw anyone lose their life or risk being in danger to an orchid who got offended about how they were discovered or how they were classified or identified...

So, basically, I see this statement as unnessecary inflation of what was being discussed. And more technically, everyone who posted their story on _Phrag. besseae_, is incorrect. Please read the complete story I just posted. Thank you all for your time and consideration,

-P.A. Mahon

PS: Marco, I am unsure as to what would spur your last post on here, but if it was hard feelings about my posts at Orchid Board, I am sorry.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 5, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Please read the complete story I just posted.


May be true and complete, but please tell us your sources. Thanks.


----------



## lienluu (Nov 5, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> May be true and complete, but please tell us your sources. Thanks.



He did, he claims he had just gotten off the phone with Cal Dodson and gotten the story from Cal....


----------



## Mahon (Nov 5, 2006)

My source is Calaway Dodson. 

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 5, 2006)

However, is this story documented? Oral history isn't always accurate.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 5, 2006)

Ahh, I forgot to discuss about the Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_... according to Dodson, there aren't any to be found in Peru anymore... the plants from Peru were speculated to not be stolonous. This is of course not true. All _Phrag. besseae_ are stolonous... _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is not stolonous, but is found in Ecaudor. The Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_ are no different from the Ecuadorian _Phrag. besseae_...

I believe oral history is VERY accurate, especially when it comes from a higher source than I. Besides, yes it is written down somewhere... there are some finer points which were not written, including on how Besse, Halton, and Luther even chanced upon the plant in bloom in the bushes, because they were driving down a road...  

-PM


----------



## gonewild (Nov 5, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> However, is this story documented? Oral history isn't always accurate.



So..... Written history is always accurate? I don't think so.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 5, 2006)

Pat, have you ever heard the statement, " Not worth dignifying with an answer"? E.L. Callender.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 5, 2006)

NYEric said:


> Pat, have you ever heard the statement, " Not worth dignifying with an answer"? E.L. Callender.



Can't say I have... but what does this pertain to the _Phragmipedium besseae_ story? Just wondering... good quote though... 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 6, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Ahh, I forgot to discuss about the Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_... according to Dodson, there aren't any to be found in Peru anymore... the plants from Peru were speculated to not be stolonous. This is of course not true. All _Phrag. besseae_ are stolonous... _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is not stolonous, but is found in Ecaudor. The Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_ are no different from the Ecuadorian _Phrag. besseae_...



This besseae is a division of a plant that was reportedly collected in Peru and imported by Orchids Limited in 1988. Note the lack of stolons:







And here is a shot of the bloom:






Maybe Olaf Gruss could give us his opinion, too? I'd like to know the identity of the plant.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 6, 2006)

gonewild said:


> So..... Written history is always accurate? I don't think so.


Perhaps not, but didn't you ever play the game where one person tells a story to another, and they in turn relay it to a third, and on and on.

Also, sometimes memory isn't so accurate as we'd like it to be. Also, people involved in the besseae story have a lot at stake.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 6, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> Perhaps not, but didn't you ever play the game where one person tells a story to another, and they in turn relay it to a third, and on and on.
> 
> Also, sometimes memory isn't so accurate as we'd like it to be. Also, people involved in the besseae story have a lot at stake.



Of course oral stories change reality and become less accurate. But written documentation is no more a guarantee to accuracy either is it?


----------



## Mahon (Nov 6, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> This besseae is a division of a plant that was reportedly collected in Peru and imported by Orchids Limited in 1988. Note the lack of stolons:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Zach,

I am sorry to say that your plant is not _Phrag. besseae_... but I do congragulate you on your _Phrag. dallesandroi_... it looks as if it needs a little more water though...

There are no more plants in Peru, it was from a single site, which is known only to a few people. Orchids Limited is not one of them, unless for some reason a leak in information occured from Besse, Halton, Luther, Dodson, or Kuhn... this can be easily be verified by Dodson and Luther.

Nice pictures though! 

-Pat


----------



## gonewild (Nov 6, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Zach,
> 
> There are no more plants in Peru,
> -Pat



Not true.


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 6, 2006)

Mahon said:


> it looks as if it needs a little more water though...


That's back when it was in new, less water retentive mix. The top would dry out every afternoon because of the air from the fan. Right under the surface it was nice and moist.


----------



## Heather (Nov 6, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Zach,
> 
> I am sorry to say that your plant is not _Phrag. besseae_... but I do congragulate you on your _Phrag. dallesandroi_... -Pat



I'd like to hear Kyle's opinion on this.


----------



## Kyle (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanks for asking Heather! I would say besseae from the picture. I can't see the staminod very clearly, but the pouch just doesn't look right. dalessandroi has a more compact pouch.












I have seen besseae in Ecuageneras collection that don't appear to have the climbing trait, or at the very least, have a minimal tendency to climb. Where they came from, I don't know.



> There are no more plants in Peru, it was from a single site, which is known only to a few people. Orchids Limited is not one of them, unless for some reason a leak in information occured from Besse, Halton, Luther, Dodson, or Kuhn... this can be easily be verified by Dodson and Luther.



So, if I was to extrapolate the information.... It was Besse, Halton, Luther, Dodson, or Kuhn who over-collected all the plants from the habitat? Cause what your saying is that they are the only people who know where it is. Therefore, if all the plants are gone, it could only have been them who took them all. That's not cool....

Further, I will add my bit to the tail of how the plant was discovered: Liz Besse was out collecting plants with a group of people. She had to go to the bathroom so she went away from the group to get a bit of privacy. She squatted, and looked up at a beautiful red flower. The rest is history...

Kyle


----------



## Heather (Nov 6, 2006)

Personally, it looks to me a lot like my Phrag that was sold as dalessandroi (by Dennis), was the clumpy habit, and I thought was maybe Jersey. However, if this is a collected plant (and couldn't the Fischer's purchase from one of Mahon's people?), I'd say Peruvian is a good bet. But that's just me of course.


----------



## bwester (Nov 6, 2006)

ya'll are ALL WRONG! I discovered phrag. besseae and it was hidden in a patch of poison ivy behind my back yard, so get your facts righ dammit!!


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 6, 2006)

I should add this:

photo credit for the bloom shot goes to John.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 6, 2006)

Kyle said:


> So, if I was to extrapolate the information.... It was Besse, Halton, Luther, Dodson, or Kuhn who over-collected all the plants from the habitat? Cause what your saying is that they are the only people who know where it is. Therefore, if all the plants are gone, it could only have been them who took them all. That's not cool....



Not at all what I am saying. They visited the site only once. The type location for _Phrag. besseae_ is incorrect. The other city they visited was the actual type locality... I shouldn't have been so adament upon there are no plants are left in the true type locality, it is really hard to completely wipe out an entire species from its in situ habitat. There may be a few plants, but not plentiful. 

I will add that I have confirmed the plants that originated from Peru are stolonous, as are typical plants of _Phrag. besseae_... confirmed by Cal Dodson and others.

I do think that the lack of available information about the Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_ has led to quite a bit of uncertainty, especially since no one (to the best of my knowledge) has re-discovered the taxon in Peru... 



Kyle said:


> Further, I will add my bit to the tail of how the plant was discovered: Liz Besse was out collecting plants with a group of people. She had to go to the bathroom so she went away from the group to get a bit of privacy. She squatted, and looked up at a beautiful red flower. The rest is history...



This was the story that I mentioned that I wouldn't mention... it was specially requested by Besse for it not to mentioned to anyone. I guess it is too late. 

-Pat


----------



## PHRAG (Nov 6, 2006)

Kyle, I remember your thread on the old forum and after it bloomed, I looked it over to make sure it followed the traits of besseae that you and Olaf Gruss both told me of.

I am going to throw this out there, because I feel confident enough in the people I spoke to to say it...

Peruvian Phragmipedium besseae, the real deal, grows without stolons. It grows in clumps. Olaf Gruss told me this. It also has a longer pouch according to Kyle, who has seen them in bloom side by side with dalessandroi. See his photo above. Jerry Fischer sold me the division of the above plant, and I gave a couple of growths to Zach. If that isn't enough of a history to make this discussion interesting, I don't know what is.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 6, 2006)

Olaf, any ideas? Dodson and others are confident that the Peruvian no longer exist in the wild in Peru, and those collected in Peru are the same as the Ecuadorian _Phrag. besseae_ specimens...

Also, don't forget... the type for _Phrag. besseae_ was described by the herbarium specimen Besse provided with pickled flower... the type describes stolonous plants, and this is 3 years before it was discovered in Ecuador by Dodson (which is the area of stolonous _Phrag. besseae_)... did they predict the future?

The non-stolonous one you have is either Phrag. Jersey or _Phrag. dallesandroi_... it does have a keen resemblance to Phrag. Jersey the more I look at it, as there is great besseae influence, yet those dallesandroi characterisitcs... I think I have seen Olaf discuss this hybrid, it is passed off too often as _Phrag. dallesandroi_... which I guess could be passed of as a VERY rare _Phrag. besseae_ found in Peru, from non-existing type localities...

Also, if the petal tips are rounded, then it mostly points to _Phrag. dallesandroi_. If the tips are pointed, then is mostly points to _Phrag. besseae_. According to Dodson, when he examined plants of _Phrag. besseae_ and _Phrag. dallesandroi_ collected from Ecuador, there is almost no difference in staminodial shields. He did note that _Phrag. dallesandroi_ staminodes are quite variable in size and coloration, and that no key feature was of any classificational use... that shield helps in other species, but in these two taxa, it doesn't... I asked him about the horn, and he said "it occurs in many plants of both species"...

-Pat


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 7, 2006)

gonewild said:


> But written documentation is no more a guarantee to accuracy either is it?


And that is why I added the statement that there is a lot at stake for the originators of the story.
I just find it difficult to believe, considering the photos I've seen of besseae in her habitat, that someone could simply find one along side a road.
But you were there, Lance. What do you think?


----------



## Kyle (Nov 7, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> It also has a longer pouch according to Kyle, who has seen them in bloom side by side with dalessandroi. See his photo above.



Just to clear up the above statement, The besseaes I have seen growing at Ecuagenera, are of Ecuadorian origin. I'm not 100%, but pretty sure.

So to change PHRAG's sentence, it should read:

*'It also has a longer pouch according to Kyle, who has seen the Ecuadorian besseae blomming side by side with dalessandroi. See his photo above'*

I have seen lots of besseaes growing along road sides in Ecuador. I've taken pictures from a truck. So, yes, its possible.

Lance, do you have any pictures of besseaes in Peru, I would like to compare what the habitats look like. Last month I was able to see the Paute population of besseae and was suprised to find it drier and more overgrown then the population I was used to seeing elsewhere in Ecuador. I'll post some pictures in a new thread later tonight.

Kyle


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 7, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Jerry Fischer sold me the division of the above plant, and I gave a couple of growths to Zach. If that isn't enough of a history to make this discussion interesting, I don't know what is.



Do you know if it had a clonal name? If so I can verrify where it came from (I can ask Jerry). I do know that Jerry got some plants back in the 80's from both Ecuador and from Peru (and they are not man made hybrids). At the time they were all considered to be Phrag. besseae, but that does not mean that the ones from Peru may have been Phrag. dalessandroi.

Robert


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> And that is why I added the statement that there is a lot at stake for the originators of the story.
> I just find it difficult to believe, considering the photos I've seen of besseae in her habitat, that someone could simply find one along side a road.
> But you were there, Lance. What do you think?



Yes it is entirely possible someone found it growing beside the road. You must consider that "beside the road" in the cloud forest of Peru is a different situation than the "beside the road" we have here here in our temperate climate. 

Considering the discovery was some 20 years ago we can assume the road was not much of a road. It may have even been a dirt road with very little traffic other than cargo trucks. From elevations of 500 meters on up to over 2500 meters the roads are mostly carved along steep mountain sides. The areas along the roads that were cleared of trees for construction and road maintenance are riddled with a small red flowering begonia. 






It would in fact be very easy to assume a small spot of red color a ways up the road clearing was a begonia. You would need to stop and focus on the flower to decide for sure. Easy to miss it. This could have been the case with besseae.

The Peruvian forest is huge and it has not yet to this day been throughly explored for "ornamental" plants. Roads cut through the area are a great flora transect to explore from. In the same type of habitat that besseae was found but in the southeast of Peru I made 12 trips in one year looking for plants. I was specifically looking for Heliconia. I was assured by a Peruvian botanist with high credentials that the region only had about 5 species of Heliconia and he provided a list from the museum. On my expeditions I collected over 90 distinct varieties which may represent close to 20 species. When I showed the Peruvian botanist my photos of the flowers he was dumb founded and amazed. He told me he and his fellow colleagues walked every meter of the road cataloging all the plant species. He could not believe they missed the ones I found. I found most of them simply by "road hunting", driving slowly down the road and looking from the car. But I focused my concentration looking for colors and objects that might be a Heliconia. I quickly learned to ignore all the red begonias. 

Now, I wonder how many of those red begonias were something else? 

I can't tell you how many times I had my driver stop because I saw a red spot up high along a waterfall. Tangled among other foliage sometimes I was never sure the plant was a begonia. It would literally take a lifetime to check out every possible new plant.

The other thing to consider is the blooming season. Besseae blooms during the rains and this fact alone could have kept the roadside flower undiscovered for years after a road opened a zone. During the rains, travel in the cloud forest is minimal and if the road was dirt perhaps no one went there. The road from Puerto Maldonado to Cuzco, which is used to supply the town of 50,000 people, is dirt. During the dry season it is a two day drive. During the rainy season the trip sometimes takes 30 days. So I've yet to explore up there during the peak of the rains. I wonder how many great plants I did not see? Perhaps in the 80's besseae was in the same situation?

Another Peruvian factor that could have kept the roadside flower undiscovered is terrorism. Prior to the early 90's it was absolutely not safe for anyone to travel in that zone. The time of the Shinning Path was a time in Peru history when people did not dare to go into the mountains. 

There are many more examples I could site to give you an idea why I believe besseae could have been found beside the road. Now, do I think it was? Yes I do, because few people will take the effort to cut a trail through the jungle, it is very hard work and usually unproductive. A botanist or orchid collector just can not come from a temperate climate and go out into the jungle and do extreme activities for any extended period of time. 






Now besseae habitat is a little more open than this :wink: but without a road you would have to deal with access.

OK, here are a couple important questions we need to have answered to make up our minds about the roadside discovery. 

How long before besseae was discovered was the road actually built and open to travel? 

Was it a "road" for cars or a road for local the people"?
(there is a big difference).


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

Kyle said:


> Lance, do you have any pictures of besseaes in Peru, I would like to compare what the habitats look like. Last month I was able to see the Paute population of besseae and was suprised to find it drier and more overgrown then the population I was used to seeing elsewhere in Ecuador. I'll post some pictures in a new thread later tonight.
> 
> Kyle



No, I've not been to the besseae habitat. It is farther north than where I lived. But now with all these unanswered questions, I feel compelled to go see for myself, maybe in February. I would love to see your habitat photos.


----------



## PHRAG (Nov 7, 2006)

Hi Robert,

I asked Jerry for a division of besseae, and he sold me the plant that was pictured above called 'Peru 1988'. It was my understanding that it was a collected plant from Peru (purchased legally), and I still believe this to be true according to what others have told me about besseae.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Hi Robert,
> 
> I asked Jerry for a division of besseae, and he sold me the plant that was pictured above called 'Peru 1988'. It was my understanding that it was a collected plant from Peru (purchased legally), and I still believe this to be true according to what others have told me about besseae.



If in fact your plant is from Peru, it is illegal. But of course, we know (including Dodson) that the species is not existent in Peru anymore... 

And to think that the Peruvian population was different from the Ecuadorian populations is ridiculus... the split between Ecuador and Peru is merely artificial... perhaps the rumor of the _Phrag. besseae_ collected from Peru after Besse 1981, is to sell the species at a similar price as to the ones sold here at Selby for $1,700 a plant... 

I will end here and wait for other replies... 

-Pat


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

Mahon said:


> And to think that the Peruvian population was different from the Ecuadorian populations is ridiculus... the split between Ecuador and Peru is merely artificial...
> 
> I will end here and wait for other replies...
> 
> -Pat



Visit the habitat before you make assumptions about the possibility of specie variations. 

In the geographically challenged terrain of the Andean jungles specie populations do in fact differ from location to location. Not based on a line drawn by man but by the isolation of geography. Plants of the same specie can differ greatly from each other both in appearance and growth habit when you change even from one river drainage to another.

The names Ecuador or Peru do not influence the genetic makeup of a specie population buy isolation does. And in the cloud forest, isolation happens in a very short distance.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Visit the habitat before you make assumptions about the possibility of specie variations.



I am not making an assumption... I am going off the information regarded in the type specimen, and the species description of _Phrag. besseae_. The species description refers to the Holotype having stolons.

I am very aware of the geography and elevation factor for variations within a single taxon. That is the primary reason why _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is a seperate species from _Phrag. besseae_, despite the extra pair of chromosomes and morphological characteristics... 

-Pat

PS: this is a pretty good thread!


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

Mahon said:


> If in fact your plant is from Peru, it is illegal. But of course, we know (including Dodson) that the species is not existent in Peru anymore...
> -Pat



Ask your info providers (including Dodson) if they know for a *fact* besseae does not exist in Peru. Perhaps you are taking information that is assumed to be true and accepting it as a fact of certainty.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

gonewild said:


> Ask your info providers (including Dodson) if they know for a *fact* besseae does not exist in Peru. Perhaps you are taking information that is assumed to be true and accepting it as a fact of certainty.



I, and almost everyone, realizes that is is almost impossible to wipe out an entire species of plant from existence. There is bound to be a few plants of _Phrag. besseae_ found in the wild in Peru. The problem, as I discussed before, is that the type locality is not known to you all for the Peruvian site. The type locality for the type of _Phrag. besseae_ is incorrect. 

Another thing that Dodson discussed with me was the possibility of those _Phrag. besseae_ that could still be in Peru will eventually die off. The pollinator for _Phrag. besseae_ is unknown, and plants found in the wild tend to rarely ever have seed pods... the plants would eventually die off. 

-Pat


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanks, Kyle and Lance. OK, I'm a believer.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> Thanks, Kyle and Lance. OK, I'm a believer.



Believer of what?  

-PM


----------



## ORG (Nov 7, 2006)

Dear Kentuckiense,
also when it is a bit late also my comment about your plant.
I think also that it is a Phrag. dalessandroi. But it is not so easy to make a finally determination on the base of your pictures. It would be better to have also the pictures of the staminode, the whole inflorescence, the back- and sideview of the flower.


Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

> Mahon said:
> 
> 
> > I, and almost everyone, realizes that is is almost impossible to wipe out an entire species of plant from existence.
> ...


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

gonewild said:


> You just can't backup a statement for a fact that besseae is extinct in Peru.
> 
> Again you are assuming the known locations are the only ones there are. In those areas there are probably only a few scattered plants left. But again you can't assume there are not unknown populations. What can you tell us about expeditions that have been done to look specifically for besseae in Peru?



Some orchids we have said they are extinct in nature, or a single plant of the taxon is found... similar to the single plant of _Masdevallia pinnochio_ found in Ecuador, then an immense site of this species was found more recently... 

The only thing I can say about recent Peruvian expeditions is no plants of _Phrag. besseae_ have been found... it has been 25 years. 

I think I have made my statement on _Phrag. besseae_ not in Peru quite drastic... I will say that _Phrag. besseae_ was found in a single location. There are possibilities of other populations or a few plants _Phrag. besseae_ existing, but none are known of. 

But yet again, there are "no aliens", and really, we need to say "to the best of our knowledge, there aren't any aliens"... which is more feasible? Until we some aliens, we are the only ones in the entire universe... we have speculations that there is possibly aliens out there somewhere, but we have no real proof... the same mentality can be applied to _Phrag. besseae_ in Peru, no? We have no proof of any _Phrag. besseae_ plants existing in Peru, and no proof that they don't exist in Peru... but there hasn't been a single sighting of _Phrag. besseae_ in Peru since 1981... I am leaning more towards the plants not existing in Peru anymore...




gonewild said:


> An incorrect type locality being published for a specie description is quite common. Please explain your point with this statement? Is it that only one person knows the real location?



There are in fact MANY incorrect type localities... the thing is, _Phrag. besseae_ is quite reknown, and has a story to go with it... also, the specified type locality does not, or has not, yielded any plants of _Phrag. besseae_... that is my point.



gonewild said:


> Doomsday talk. They will eventually die off because no one knows what the pollinator is? How many seeds does a plant need to produce to perpetuate the specie? How are they studying the pollination if there are no plants left?



No, the suspected plants of Peruvian _Phrag. besseae_ wouldn't die off because we do not know the pollinator... instead, look closer at the systematics of _Phrag. besseae_... the species is reported to not be as seed bearing as _Phrag. dallesandroi_, but has a trailing rhizome... it makes sense that the trailing rhizome of _Phrag. besseae_ is a characteristic of vegetative propagation over seed propagation... _Phrag. dallesandroi_ lacks a stolonous and trailing rhizome, and bears many seeds... it makes sense that the abundance in pods and seeds in _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is a characteristic of seed propagation, while the trailing rhizome on this species is lacking, so vegetative propagation is less likely of occuring.

I do find that pollinators are VERY important for these species. Since _Phrag. dallesandroi_ has been sighted to be pollinated by hummingbirds, and it propagates mostly with seeds, this species is specialized florally. The pollinator of _Phrag. besseae_ remains unknown, and this species produces trailing rhizomes, so it is specialized vegetatively... do you agree? 

-Pat


----------



## gonewild (Nov 7, 2006)

> Mahon said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I can say about recent Peruvian expeditions is no plants of _Phrag. besseae_ have been found... it has been 25 years.
> ...


----------



## Mahon (Nov 7, 2006)

gonewild said:


> But my question is, has there been any serious expeditions to search for besseae? Just because none have been found in 25 years does not mean anyone has seriously looked for them. So unless we know the area has been throughly searched we should not assume they are not there anymore.



I will get back to you on this one. I will have to ask Dodson again... he would know of the serious searches, as I think he may disclose the information to select people, or would have been informed about a serious search.

Here is an assumption: _Phrag. besseae_ is found in Peru. It wasn't until 3 years later that is was discovered in Ecuador by Dodson... we know that when there is a new species of almost any orchid (especially the really wanted plants that will bring in money) orchid hunters go after the type locality, and try and find more around there. This may have happened, I have no proof, but it would only make sense. But we know that there weren't any _Phrag. besseae_ collected from Peru after Besse 1981... at least legally. 



gonewild said:


> I've been told by a somewhat "reliable" person in Perurollhappy that besseae does in fact exist.



If that person can produce a true specimen of non-stolonous _Phrag. besseae_, and can provide in situ pics, I will consider believing _Phrag. besseae_ existing in Peru. How come you haven't made mention of him earlier? Anyways, just a few pics is all anyone needs. 



gonewild said:


> No! Based on your example you must agree with me! We have (had) besseae so applying your example of aliens we then must assume there are others out there. We have real proof besseae existed in Peru unlike aliens from farout.



Real proof can exist when another plant turns up. The possibility of a waif which propagated by way of seed dispersal is more likely than real populations existing in Peru... if we look at the known and main distribution of Ecuadorian _Phrag. besseae_, we will see that they are in a vast area, but contained in Ecuador... _Phrag. dallesandroi_ is right in the middle of them all. Isn't it maybe possible that some storm or wind dispersed the seeds south into Peru? It happens all the time with _Oceoclades maculata_... we have plants of this species going from Selby Gardens here in Sarasota County down to Miami-Dade County (where some other escapees of the same species also dispersed)... then there are plants showing up in Ecuador, and I think other South and Central American countries as well... orchid waifs happen quite a bit... I have two new records for _Bletia purpurea_ and _Triphora gentianoides_ for Sarasota County... both species are found in the southern counties of Florida... _Zeuxine streumatica_ disperses everywhere in Florida...



gonewild said:


> But which story?



My second post. What we are discussing now is not the story, but more of the type specimen of _Phrag. besseae_ from Peru.




gonewild said:


> Not having the wild Peruvian stolonous plants to look at I would raise a question to the purpose of the rhizome. Rather than being a method of reproduction the rhizome appears to me to be for elevating the plants foliage above competing "roadside" vegitation, enabeling the plant to recieve more light.



Which came first..._Phrag. besseae_, or the roadside vegetation? I understand what you are saying, the smaller weeds which grow nearer to the road... I believe that most plants of _Phrag. besseae_ perfer a more vertical growing situation, preferably a cliff face or a steep hill... there may be a few exceptions... _Phrag. besseae_ was found on a steep hill though, away from the road in Peru... usually, they are found in quite a bit of light... again, there are some exceptions.



gonewild said:


> Is this a fact that hummingbirds actually pollinate P. dallesandroi? Or rather have hummingbirds been observed visiting the flowers?



I think this is up for debate... it depends on who you talk to... the hummingbird visited the flower, but the pollen was dislodged from the flower afterwards... it isn't mentioned, because we have no evidence of another flower being pollinated, so assumuming the hummingbird is the pollinator is just taking a chance...



gonewild said:


> I agree that you have drawn a logical conclusion. But based on my comments above about the purpose of the rhizomes I don't agree about it's function in reproduction. Does besseae have a branching rhizome? If not how can it cause the plant to multiply? To be a predominate factor in reproduction the purpose must be to increase numbers. Does your besseae population increase because you need to divide your plants often? More so than for dallesandroi?



Here's what I was getting at and decided not to post it (I don't know why)... I have seen so many in situ pictures of _Phrag. besseae_ and _Phrag. dallesandroi_, that I get dizzy. I notice that plants of _Phrag. besseae_ usually grow on the cliff faces... where are the many growth specimens? Where is the _Phrag. besseae_ with a thousand growths? I then look at _Phrag. dallesandroi_, and there are wide clumps of these, growing on the forest floor or horizontally on rocks... so perhaps _Phrag. besseae_ is similar to _Fernandezia sanguinea_; in the wild, they have life spans. In cultivation, it is a different story (on both)... _Fernandezia_ can be kept alive for a long time in cultivation, instead of being a near-annual type orchid in situ... what do you think? 



gonewild said:


> Pat, I'm serious you should go look at these things for yourself. You're young and could easily do it.



I would really enjoy going down there if I went with someone who has been there before... 

Also, Lance, I hope that all of these posts aren't offending you... I am re-reading them, and the way I have written them, seems like they are in an angry tone of voice (though it's being typed)... I am not trying argue with you, but seeing what information we can debate or draw about _Phrag. besseae_...  I am tired, so good night,

-Pat


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 8, 2006)

Mahon said:


> If in fact your plant is from Peru, it is illegal. But of course, we know (including Dodson) that the species is not existent in Peru anymore...
> 
> -Pat




I will have Jason respond, but in short Jerry collected these plants legally in Peru back in the 1980's (that was before CITES was around). Jason does think that they may be a natural hybrid between besseae and dallesandroi, but like I said earlier Jerry collected them before dallesandroi was described so at the time they were all labeled as Phrag. besseae.

Robert


----------



## PHRAG (Nov 8, 2006)

Drorchid said:


> Jason does think that they may be a natural hybrid between besseae and dallesandroi, but like I said earlier Jerry collected them before dallesandroi was described so at the time they were all labeled as Phrag. besseae.


 

I can understand why there was no confusion about the plant back then, but that doesn't explain the confusion less than a year ago when I was sold the plant labeled as a besseae.


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 8, 2006)

I said Jason believes they may be a natural hybrid. Jerry is the one that probably sold the plant to you, and he still believes they are pure Phrag. besseae (They are all still labeled as Phrag. besseae).


Robert


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 8, 2006)

err... Hasn't d'allesandroi only been observed in Ecuador?


----------



## Drorchid (Nov 8, 2006)

I am sorry I was mistaken (I edited my above statement)....Yes dallesandroi was first discovered in Ecuador, and that is probably where most are. I was just getting confused about the whole story that no "besseae's" are still in Peru.

What I was trying to say was that there are 2 extreme populations of what I consider to be the same species. One population is considered by some as being Phrag. besseae and the other as Phrag. dallesandroi, but I think that gene flow still occurs from one population to the other, as it is hard to draw a line between individuals from separate populations, especially if you have so called hybrids that occur in nature (like the one Jerry found in Peru). 

To me these so called "hybrid" populations are just intermediate populations between the 2 extreme populations. Also to me the fact that they have a stolon or are clump forming is not a good characteristic to differentiate between the 2 species. Also the pouch length can vary a lot within a species, so this also is not a good charcteristic. 

And I do think that plants were found in Peru that some people consider to be Phrag. dallesandroi (but I would call them besseae).

Robert


----------



## Mahon (Nov 8, 2006)

Drorchid said:


> And to be honest; to me Pharg. dallesandroi and Phrag. besseae are all one and the same species, to me it is just one variable species with 2 extreme populations, one in Ecuador that we call Phrag. besseae, and one in Peru that we call Phrag. dallesandroi, but it is hard to draw the line between the 2, especially if in the wild (like the one that PHRAG got from us) is a potential natural hybrid between the 2 populations.



I realize that you corrected yourself in another post about _Phrag. dalessandroi_... I too have been adament in saying _Phrag. dalessandroi_ is a mere variety of _Phrag. besseae_... but doing a little more research will reveal that they are closely related, but distinct... if we go by DNA analysis, it would be assumed that _Phrag. dalessandroi_ is a seperate taxon than _Phrag. besseae_. A morphological approach would suggest that they are the same species, just a subspecies (as they are both red)... if we go to the distribution of the species, we realize that _Phrag. besseae_ makes a wide coverage area, while _Phrag. dalessandroi_ found right in the middle of the populations... it could be assumed that the merge between both taxa would yield natural hybrids of both species, but no proof that I have heard of yet. 

*The type specimen found in Peru by Besse, in bloom, was a typical looking Phrag. besseae with stolons... I don't understand where the rumor of non-stolonous Phrag. besseae from Peru came from...* 

-Pat


----------



## Jason Fischer (Nov 8, 2006)

Well, Robert asked me to so I'll throw in my 2 'cents' that seem to make 'sense' to me!

I pulled out the good ol' American Orchid Society Bulletin (for you kids out there, that's what it used to be called before it went to Orchids Magazine) from December 1992 to refresh my memory. There is an article written by Calaway H. Dodson, followed by another article by Arnold Gum which combined describes the discovery of three forms of besseae at that time. 

First off, there was the Zamoran form from Ecuador, which by the old pictures looks like what we call today d'allesandroi. The more commonly used round-shaped besseae referred to as the 'Paute' form was also found in Ecuador. The other form, referred to as the 'Peruvian' form ranged from Peru to Colombia, which has slightly droopy petals that slant forward a bit, which is like the type my father collected back in 1988. 

These were usually discovered in isolated colonies; which means of course the seed was only traveling so far and that particular variety of besseae stuck close to its parents. Why almost 15 years later someone decides to re-name one of the three types to d'allesandroi I don't know. Eric Christensen recently told me at a lecture "If it were any other plant, let's say a coffee plant, it would have a variety name given. But whenever it's a paph or phrag, everybody has to be the first to try and give it a new species name". I'd agree there's truth in that.

I told Robert that perhaps the 'Paute' form crossed with d'allesandroi would create what my father discovered in Peru, but I can't say for sure, especially because both those forms are not close to where the Peruvian forms were discovered. The only way to be for sure would be to make the cross and then test the DNA. When my father brought those plants back 18 years ago, of course there were known as besseae, and still are known as that today. The truth is besseae has many forms that people don't even know about yet. And in fact, there's a form that does not grow out of the pot on a stolen that also self-pollinates. I know this because we have one! 

Now to further express my opinion, let me say something about 'natural hybrids'. To us as orchid growers and taxonomists, the only thing that justifies us calling something a 'natural hybrid' is the fact that we have a plant that we can re-create because both of the parents are not extinct. The truth is all species we know of today are 'natural hybrids' of some sort. I doubt there's a paph or phrag out there that still looks exactly like they did millions of years ago. From what we know and have seen in the natural hybrid world is a mere blink of an eye to mother nature. Let's take for example paph. x fanaticum (micranthum x malipoense). Tom Kalina has a piece of one collected from the wild. No matter how many micranthum x malipoense us breeders may try to make, nothing can mimic or come close to the actual appearance of what was collected in the wild. Why? Because perhaps x fanaticum was naturally hybridized hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Then a colony formed as pollinators kept it going throughout the years. This is why I beleive you won't be able to create the peruvian species that we have here and that PHRAG bought.

Now let's look at besseae. It is far more fertile than paph x fanaticum and grows at 3 times the speed. Give a plant like that the chance to evolve over thousands of years and you've got several variety possibilities. That's why we see so many types of besseae. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more varieties still waiting to be discovered. 

We do, of course, have to somehow identify each type, whether it is by variety or new species. It is only logical to keep track of plant data. The problem is people mis-labeling plants or recording false information or forgetting to record information over the years of orchid discovery.

Some of you may probably know all of this jibber jabber, but for those who don't I hope it gives you a little insight on a complicated subject!


----------



## Mahon (Nov 9, 2006)

Jason,

Thanks for adding to the discussion! If you can supply pictures of the many types of _Phrag. besseae_, it would be appreciated! I think I made mention that Dodson believes _Phrag. dalessandroi_ is self-pollinating in the wild... hence, the overload and excess of seed pods. The plants of this taxon are non-stolonous... perhaps you can supply pictures of your self-pollinating plant in bloom?

Dodson personally does not seperate the population of _Phrag. besseae_ found in Paute, Ecuador from typical _Phrag. besseae_... it was to sight another locality of the species. I believe in his article, he used it to compare to the poulation in Zamora?

Populations in Zamora, Ecuador was the original place where Dennis D'Alessandro found the non-stolonous _Phrag. besseae_... the site and nearby sites were all collected by a local botanical garden. The range of _Phrag. dalessandroi_ is quite large, and located in the middle of typical _Phrag. besseae_ populations... there is huge possiblity that there are natural hybrids occuring at the edge where both species meet...

The reason of splitting _Phrag. dalessandroi_ from _Phrag. besseae_ is primarily the distribution of the species over morphological characterisitcs. Then, there is DNA Analysis to contribute to a split in the species, to keep them distinct. _Phrag. dalessandroi_ has two more chromosomes than _Phrag. besseae_... Eric Christenson has a prejudice against any work done by any affiliate at Selby Gardens. He apparently is not welcome here, for reasons not worth discussing. Anyways,

I do agree about your thoughts on the natural hybrids... who knows, there could have been so much crossing back from _Phrag. besseae_ with _Phrag. dalessandroi_, and back again or with the resulting hybrid... a DNA Analysis will definitely give some insight as to these wierd forms of _Phrag. besseae_... 

Also, do you have the records of the _Phrag. besseae_ plants that were collected in Peru?

-Pat


----------



## gonewild (Nov 9, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Also, Lance, I hope that all of these posts aren't offending you... I am re-reading them, and the way I have written them, seems like they are in an angry tone of voice (though it's being typed)... I am not trying argue with you, but seeing what information we can debate or draw about _Phrag. besseae_...  I am tired, so good night,
> 
> -Pat


No, Pat you have not offended me in any way. I think you have written well and I did not read it as angry. 

I don't mind if you argue, in fact arguing is what brings out ideas, concepts, thoughts and new discoveries. As long as you don't call names or tell me I am stupid I respect what you write. Since we are writing about uncertain things we both have a chance at being correct. I just know I am more correct than you. :clap: 

I'll be back soon to comment on the other points you raised.


----------



## Jason Fischer (Nov 9, 2006)

Pat,

Sure, I can post some pics. This will also give me a chance to try my new scanner for some of the pics in the AOS Bulletin. Give me a couple days... tomorrow is my first day off of work in 3 weeks and I'm going to do something that doesn't involve orchids . And yes, you're right, Dodson compared the Paute form to the Zamoran form in his article.

I'd also like to comment that you've impressed me with your knowledge, dedication and ambition to learn orchid history and taxonomy at such a young age. The internet has allowed me to learn who some of the future orchid 'Super Stars', as I like to call them, will be for the next generation. You're on the right track. One thing I've learned over the years is knowledge can come and go quickly, but wisdom takes a loooong time to gain. Maybe I've just started to gain a little myself . Keep up the good work.

OK, I'll get new pics up by the weekend.

Best wishes,

Jason






Mahon said:


> Jason,
> 
> Thanks for adding to the discussion! If you can supply pictures of the many types of _Phrag. besseae_, it would be appreciated! I think I made mention that Dodson believes _Phrag. dalessandroi_ is self-pollinating in the wild... hence, the overload and excess of seed pods. The plants of this taxon are non-stolonous... perhaps you can supply pictures of your self-pollinating plant in bloom?
> 
> ...


----------



## Mahon (Nov 9, 2006)

Jason,

I have the scanned pictures for the December 1992 AOS Bulletin... here they are: 






















Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it!  I have sent you a PM...
ttyl,

-Pat


----------



## Jason Fischer (Nov 12, 2006)

Here's a pic of a distinct non-stolonous besseae we have that somewhat looks like dallesandroi but then again I think not. It does not hold multiple flowers like dallesaondroi, plus the flowers seem much more 'full'. It also self-pollinates. I don't have foliage pics at the moment, but you know what besseae foliage looks like, nothing different. 

I'm sure many flower types have been crossed and back-crossed so many times that there are several small colonies of slightly different besseae-like species out there.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 12, 2006)

Jason,

That must be the wierdest _Phrag. besseae_ I have seen! It looks like it has _Phrag. besseae_ and _Phrag. dalessandroi_ in it, and could be a multiple crossing of those two species or the result? Also, what happened to the lower flower, did it bloom without a staminodial shield? 

Thanks for the photos, much appreciated! 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Nov 12, 2006)

Jason, I love that besseae. Reminds me of some of those besseae/schlimii crosses that have fischeri in them.


----------

