paph Saint-Swithin

[raymond]

paph Saint Swithin (philippinense X rothschildianum ) the first plant flowering

 

[Brabantia]

Very nice, it is also on my wish list.

 

[John M]

It's very beautiful, Raymond. However, are you sure of the name? It's just one photo of couse and identifications can't be accurate from just one photo; but, it looks a lot more like a Susan Booth (made with praestans), to me than a Saint Swithin.

 

[biothanasis]

Nice stripes!!!!!! Beautiful!!

 

[slippertalker]

It does look like Paph Susan Booth...........

 

[SlipperFan]

Good one!

 

[CodPaph]

very nice , is Susan Booth

 

[raymond]

Hello John, I check for the name and I do the comparison with the photo in AQ Plus 3.4, the flower that I really is not red enough to be a Susan Booth, I would like to say that is a ca paph Susan Booth and I like this plant I have not yet succeeded in buying a

I present another picture of my plant that is actually a St. Swithin

 

[slippertalker]

You raise an interesting point. The Paph Susan Booth's from the past in AQ+ are more red than your plant. The taxonomy of the praestans/glanduliferum group has changed over the years. The true praestans are more yellow in color than wilhelminae which is much darker (and smaller).

When Paph praestans is bred with roth, it will create a flower such as yours. When Paph wilhelminae is bred with roth, it creates dark flowers.

Paph praestans at one time was considered conspecific with glanduliferum as was wilhelminae, and the cross with rothschildianum was Susan Booth.

Now the praestans cross is considered Susan Booth and the wilhelminae cross is William Ambler. Unfortunately, you can't go back in time and award these plants under today's names, so there are dark colored Paph Susan Booths.

A similar conundrum exists with Phrag Grande with normal colored and dark forms. The normal forms are made with what is Phrag caudatum and the dark ones are made with what is now Phrag warszewiczianum which was formerly considered considered a variety of caudatum. The remake with the new taxonomy is Phrag Wossner Supergrande, but once again plants were awarded under the old taxonomy and there are many dark Phrag Grandes.

Your plant is strongly influenced by Paph praestans, and there is no evidence of Paph philippinense in the flower. The color, stance and conformation of the flower are entirely different from Paph Saint Swithin.

 

[SlipperKing]

Although more red, still has the same general shape.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4348&highlight=Susan+Booth
Dot's plant.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9567&highlight=Susan+Booth
Gilda's
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7821&highlight=Susan+Booth
And here is one of mine with extreme praestans influence
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12258&highlight=Susan+Booth&page=2

 

[John M]

Hello John, I check for the name and I do the comparison with the photo in AQ Plus 3.4, the flower that I really is not red enough to be a Susan Booth, I would like to say that is a ca paph Susan Booth and I like this plant I have not yet succeeded in buying a

I present another picture of my plant that is actually a St. Swithin

Hi Raymond,
I agree with Slippertalker, there are a lot of red Susan Booth's out there because they are actually William Ambler (made with wilhelminiae). IMHO, your plant just doesn't have any influence from philippinense and it looks as though it's got a lot of influence from praestans....which would make it Susan Booth.

Why don't you try comparing your flower to other Saint Swithins, instead of comparing it to Susan Booths; because as already indicated, a lot of Susan Booth's are mislabelled William Amblers.

Either way, it's a fantastic flower and I'd love to own it myself! BTW: Saint Swithin is registered as "Saint" Swithin, not "St." Swithin.

 

[NYEric]

Thanx for posting, whatever it is!

 

[Ernie]

I think John M is right. The pouch is long and narrow, and the petals are very twisty. Indicates glanduliferum/praestans.

-Ernie