My fairrie OZ

[SlipperKing]

I'm surprise this plant is doing as well as it is. Lost in the mail system for 9 days, expected the 24th showed up 1/2/16.

Second flower opening as well.

I have a couple of spots that maybe the same as the other OZ fairrie but mine haven't given me any reason for concern.

Finally from an old issue of the Orchid Digest, 1978. I think my is var Reticlutaum!

 

[SlipperFan]

That's beautiful. But I don't understand all these varieties.

 

[cattmad]

Love the deep red colour.

I think you find 'reticulatum' is a clonal name and quite possibly an ancestor of your plant

 

[Ozpaph]

nice dark colour.
those all look like colour variants rather than true 'type' varieties.

 

[Justin]

well regrdless, these OZ fairrieanums are killing me. maybe next time i will get one. amazing stuff.

 

[troy]

It would appear that all the individual traits or the unwanted traits have been bred out, so there is a better one that can be awarded lol...

 

[abax]

Very, very pretty and quite floofy for a Paph. I didn't know
there was so much variation in the species.

 

[Clark]

1978 was a great year for me too.
Cheers!

 

[trdyl]

What a beauty!

 

[Ozpaph]

1978 was a great year for me too.
Cheers!

I give up...................???

 

[SlipperKing]

Anyone who had any knowledge of the editor, Dr Jack Fowile knew he was a splitter. Looking at the map in the article one can see the habitat locations indicated by seven circles in a row. Probably variation from one end to the other but the only excepted variety is nigrscens. Oops, I forgot the album also.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

 

[troy]

What I'm trying to say is all the different varities shown on the papers on this thread do not exist, due to selective breeding for flowers to be judged.....

 

[emydura]

Nice intense colour Rick.

How cool is forma longisepalum.

 

[SlipperKing]

Well Troy I think you're making a statment that you have no proof of truth to be making. These flowers where collected or at least photographed from the wilds in the late 70's. Who's to say if I went to the Himalayan habitat that I wouldn't find these different varieties tomorrow? Granted, you would be hard pressed to find any commercially viable orchids brought before judges look anything like their wild ancestors but that has no bearing on their existence. like I said, Fowile was a splitter and just because he published in the Digest doesn't mean these are excepted by the scientific community as validate.

What I'd like to take away from these old publishicatons is the kind of plant material our ancestors had to work with. We get so use to looking at these man-make hybrid species its hard to image what variety the wild-type can really have.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

 

[SlipperKing]

That is a really strange one David. I'd be hard pressed to find that form here in the states.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

 

[trdyl]

Personally for me, in many cases the wild forms have the most charm. Line breeding to round out the blooms or to get rid of "unsightly" traits is not always a good thing in my eye.

 

[troy]

Good point rick, I know howard gunn kept species plants seperate from hybridizing or making sib crosses to keep natural form, I think there is such pressure for status quo that people forget about that

 

[SlipperFan]

...
What I'd like to take away from these old publishicatons is the kind of plant material our ancestors had to work with. We get so use to looking at these man-make hybrid species its hard to image what variety the wild-type can really have.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Excellent points, Rick.

 

[Trithor]

Great post Rick! Thank you for taking the time to give us all that info.
Lovely fairrie!

 

[SlipperKing]

Hey Gary. You must be a busy man these days. Haven't seen you in awhile.