Naming of Paph. anitum progeny on the RHS app

JayeL · Jan 5, 2023

Hi All

Compliments of the season to everybody on this forum.

I have been splurging on Paph anitum progeny in the last few years and I have been very well rewarded this spring/summer flowering season. This despite that Durban has been experiencing many cold (as low as 15c (60f)

, it's all relative) and rainy days this summer. One of my favourites is Paph. Wössner Black Wings, of which 3 have been 1st time flowerers this year. I live in hope for the next flowering when I see some of the pictures posted, especially from the Australian folk. Being relegated to a variety of Paph adductum, it always raises a smile to see postings referring to "... Paph Johanna Burkhardt (actually Paph. Wössner Black Wings) ..." - but I accept that taxonomic rules must apply and Paph. Wössner Black Wings is clearly marked as a synonym on the RHS website.

Now that I am being more selective in what I want to buy, I have been doing some research on the plants that I have already bought and those that I still want to acquire. This is when the confusion set in!!!

For example, I have some Paph Hsinying Anita plants (another of my favourites with their rich red mahogany colour). My expectation was that this would be flagged as synonymous with the similar breeding using Paph adductum. On the RHS website Paph. Hsinying Anita (Paph. Lady Isobel x Paph. adductum var anitum) is not flagged as synonymous. Likewise, if I call up Paph. Hsinying Lady Duck (Paph. Lady Isobel x Paph. adductum) this is also not flagged as synonymous. Are Paph adductum and Paph anitum now being treated as distinct?

Another example is Paph. Hilo Bald Eagle TOO (Paph. stonei x Paph. Johanna Burkhardt) and Paph. Hilo Bald Eagle (Paph. stonei x Paph. Wössner Black Wings) both of which are not flagged as being synonyms on the RHS website - I think that this is an accident waiting to happen when the label fades

. In this example, Paph. Johanna Burkhardt and Paph. Wössner Black Wings are being treated as distinct, even though Paph. Wössner Black Wings was originally flagged as a synonym.

Could somebody explain to the uneducated why it seems that Paph anitum and its progeny are now being treated as distinct on the RHS website? Has something changed?

Kind regards

JL

PS. I will leave the godefroyae/leucochilum/angthong rules to another day

Ray · Jan 5, 2023

This response is an observation, not a statement based upon factual knowledge of the situation:

I don’t know the RHS position on the species status, but my “gut feel” is that the registrar may make such changes when new hybrids are registered, but doesn’t necessarily go back into all related records and repeat those corrections.

I’m sure it’s a lot of work, some of which could just be changed again at the seeming whim of another taxonomist.

Let’s not forget - the International Orchid Registrar is not the authority on the proper naming; they are simply “the company accountant” that keeps track of transactions.

JayeL · Jan 5, 2023

Ray said:
Let’s not forget - the International Orchid Registrar is not the authority on the proper naming; they are simply “the company accountant” that keeps track of transactions.

Hi Ray

I absolutely agree with your sentiments - but was trying to work out what the RHS accepts or does not accept.

I have successfully used the pollen from my WBW, but was trying to figure out what the parentage of such cross would be for registration purposes. I assumed that WBW would not be accepted, and that the cross would be considered a JB cross for registration purposes. However, that no longer seems to be the case when you consider the examples I provided above.

Before anybody says so, yes, I am counting the chickens (at least 6 years) before they hatch...

Thanks for the response - Being an accountant, I can resonate with the analogy

.

JL

tnyr5 · Jan 5, 2023

JayeL said:
Hi Ray

I absolutely agree with your sentiments - but was trying to work out what the RHS accepts or does not accept.

I have successfully used the pollen from my WBW, but was trying to figure out what the parentage of such cross would be for registration purposes. I assumed that WBW would not be accepted, and that the cross would be considered a JB cross for registration purposes. However, that no longer seems to be the case when you consider the examples I provided above.

Before anybody says so, yes, I am counting the chickens (at least 6 years) before they hatch...

Thanks for the response - Being an accountant, I can resonate with the analogy .

JL

Until the pollen takes, you're actually counting chickens before the rooster even visits the hen, lol. Register it as whatever x WBW, when the time comes. If they don't like it, they'll tell you. I suspect you'll have no trouble.

mormodes · Jan 5, 2023

The registrar will accept WBW. I came here looking for pics of Paphiopedilum Shih Yueh Swallow since a pic of Paphiopedilum Crowning Glory was just posted to Facebook. They do what they want. shrug.

Guldal · Jan 5, 2023

One has to keep ones tongue straight in the mouth when dealing with this problem. First step is to realize that the Hybrid Registrar is run by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), The Kew checklist which by many is considered the last word in taxonomy (like the stone tablets allegedly brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses) is run by, well, Kew.
RHS accepts WBW as a cross between roth x anitum. In my book their registry ought to be the authoritative source, when it comes to hybrids.
Kew sinks anitum into synonymity with adductum. As the AOC (the Australian Orchid Council) refers to Kew in all matters taxonomically, this leads to the absurd situation that all WBWs in Australia are judged as JBs (the cross between roth and adductum) as the AOC refers to Kew on the taxonomic status of the parents of both. Hence, beware of all JBs from Australian breeding: you'll never know if what you get from JB x self, actually is JB x self, WBW x self or JB x WBW.
How the judges in international competitions will handle the confusion will be interesting to see?!