SlipperKing
Madd Virologist
Welcome to the hybrid world Rudolf!
My Polyanthas in 2022
- Thread starter GuRu
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
KyushuCalanthe
Just call me Tom
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 8,280
- Reaction score
- 588
Lovely flowers, and lovely photos - very effective lighting.
Thanks, Rick. To be honest, I've grown already 4 Paph. and one Phrag hybrids so you see I'm not completely against them. As long as the hybrids look pretty and achieve an improvement of the look of the flower or the vigour of the plant.....they are o.k.. What I don't like are crosses between species which have been crossed without an concept.....just because they were in flower at the same moment and overbreeded species......like complex Paph. hybrids. But to be honest 3 of my Paph. hybrids were mislabeled plants and the Phrag. hybrid (my one and only Phrag) was a gift of a vendor at one of the Dresden Orchid Shows many years ago. I bought only my Paph. Lynleigh Koopowitz deliberately but by coincidence because it was cheap about 20 years ago when I started again to be in orchids after a spell without almost all orchids because of moving house and thereafter building a new house.
Tom, at this day I didn't need any lighting set.....it was all natural light.
I like where this investigation is going. Breeders who have integrity are accountable for the heritage tree of their progeny. Alas hybrid determination is not exacting.
incharm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2020
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 288
From the color pattern of dorsal, petal and pouch, and the form of petal, think it has philippinense inside. Not supardii itself, or David Ott. But I cannot sure if it is supardii x philippinense straightly. Maybe other species inside too. Mislabeled is always a trouble thing!
I'm all with you...in principle!
Considering, though, how many plants that are passing through the hands of Hilmar Bauch of Asendorfer Orchideensucht (or in any other nursery of an equal size), the odd mishap is bound to happen once in a while. I think, that's unavoidable.
The other side of the coin: it shouldn't happen too often - and absolutely crucial is, how the nursery owner handles the problem, if confronted with it!
I got this as a freebie from Hilmar with a larger order some time back. P. wardii album as the tag heralds, it most likely ain't...but it actually have triggered my curiosity immensely, and I so much hope, that I will succeed in keeping it alive untill flowering, and the revelation of the mystique mystery dawns.
Though, in all truth, I have to admit, that I'm probably only able to preserve a certain detached stoicism in the matter, because it was an extra, and not some highly coveted cross, I had dreamt of acquiring for years!
Last edited:
Jens, you are a lucky one.....your mislabeled Paph. wardii album ....... is in reality.....Paph. hangianum album !! What a haul !!
That would indeed be a pleasant surprise!your mislabeled Paph. wardii album ....... is in reality.....Paph. hangianum album !! What a haul !!
Sounds, though, too good to be true!
I definitely agree this is not wardii album, which has mottled leaves. See pic below in front row. Back rows are javanicums.Jens, you are a lucky one.....your mislabeled Paph. wardii album ....... is in reality.....Paph. hangianum album !! What a haul !!
But a hangibum would be amazing!!! A possibility based on leave shape now.
I agree. I can see supardii crossed with philippinense here.
tnyr5
Well-Known Member
Just because the breeder is honest doesn't mean the flasker is.
An apt comment!
The late Popow sr. received a whole batch of sukhakulii fma. album from his flasker - or maybe more correctly stated: fma. allegedly album, which none of the plants turned out to be. I can't imagine how tiresome a proces it must have for him been, as the complaints one by one started to come in.
The flasker might not have been dishonest, though. Maybe the whole hullaballoo could have been caused by a blank, drawn in the great lottery of genetics - or what we witnessed might have been the result of an all too human error ("Errare humanum est")!
Popow, by the way, handled the situation exemplarily and with grace: he let me keep the plant and made a full refund of the cost.
Oh, Leslie, if I didn't cherish my Slippertalk penpal so dearly, I would probably have a wee bit difficulties in surpressing the urge to: kill, kill, kill!
tnyr5
Well-Known Member
Oh, they can be very dishonest, much more so than that. It's the reason I now do my own flasking. Seed can't magically change species if it never leaves the house.
Maybe you both are on the right track.
This morning I received the response of Hilmar B. and he sent mi photos of his Paph. David Ott, and of his parentage plants. He also repeated that my plant wouldn't be a Paph. David Ott and he wrote that he forwarded my photos to O.Gruss and Olaf uttered my plant could be Paph. Super Saint which is a cross of Paph. supardii x Paph. Saint Swithin. This new constellation would explain the influence of Paph. philippinense and paph. rothschildianum.
With regard of Hilmars photos I'm waiting of his consent to show them here.
Last edited:
Ok, for Guldal, so absolutely no offence to Hilmar, I was not throwing shade, I have had no dealings with this person, but I was applauding the group consensus in their effort to solve this identity situation. Honest mistakes happen, but we should also applaud integrity.
That proposition is the one so far, that IMHO makes most sense!
I think there shouldn't exist two different opinions about the idendity of my next Polyantha in flower, Paph. sanderianum. I bought the plant from A. Popow in 2014 and she flowered for the first time in 2016. Now she's flowering again with 4 flowers and I, as a windowill grower, am very pleased with it. The lenght of the petals is between 55 and 60 cm.
Paph. sanderianum :
Paph. sanderianum :
Last edited:
