Paphioledilum Microchip

[Phred]

This is Paphiopedilum Microchip (Paph villosum var laichaunum 'Lilly HCC/AOS x helenae)
Mini Paph so far the size of helenae. The flowers are bigger than helenae flowers and resemble the pod parent more than the pollen parent although you can definitely tell it's a helenae cross.
Several blooming in their compots.
This is not to be confused with Paph Hengduan's Qin... a cross between helenae x (regular) villosum. The difference here is the villosum I used was var laichaunum a much smaller variety.

 

[mrhappyrotter]

Nice outcome! You made this cross yourself?

I appreciate the info about the pod parent. That variety of villosum sounds right down my alley -- I say that as I'm actively in the process of downsizing my collection.

 

[Ozpaph]

using a varietal of villosum shouldnt change the grex name.

 

[Morja]

using a varietal of villosum shouldnt change the grex name.

Though I know this is technically true, how could one make the distinction otherwise if villosum truly has enough variety within its "types" to make a difference in progeny? What if someone down the road wanted to remake this cross, but kept coming up frustrated with larger plants than they wanted or remembered, simply because the knowledge that the use of the smaller variety was lost to time?

 

[Ray]

That is a flaw in the registration system.

Same parent = same grex.

Either that or find a good taxonomic argument to separate the variety into its own species.

 

[Phred]

Nice outcome! You made this cross yourself?

I appreciate the info about the pod parent. That variety of villosum sounds right down my alley -- I say that as I'm actively in the process of downsizing my collection.

Thank you mrhappyrotter... I did make this cross.

using a varietal of villosum shouldnt change the grex name.

It most certainly should matter... if it different enough from the species crosses should be kept track of as such. There are four excepted varieties of villosum. If you cross them back and forth you not only lose the characteristics of the variety you also lose the specific characteristics of the species. How many times have we seen Paph villosum var. annamense that was not annamense.
Take Paph barbigerum... at one time there was Paph barbigerum and Paph barbigerum var. coccineum. I'm sure breeders crossed them back and forth and sold them as paph barbigerum. Now Paph barbigerum var. coccineum has been elevated to species status... Paph coccineum. Now if you crossed Paph barbigerum to Paph coccineum the offspring would be a primary hybrid.

That is a flaw in the registration system.

Same parent = same grex.

Either that or find a good taxonomic argument to separate the variety into its own species.

Hi Ray
Thats the point.. They're not the same parents so it's not a flaw. It lets you know exactly what was used in the cross. Not doing it allows the whole group to become a mish mash and nothing is pure.

 

[Ray]

Hi Ray
Thats the point.. They're not the same parents so it's not a flaw. It lets you know exactly what was used in the cross. Not doing it allows the whole group to become a mish mash and nothing is pure.

I think we're arguing the same point. Right now, the "flaw" is that GenusA speciesA v.1 and GenusA speciesA v.2 are considered the same species when it comes to grex naming and registration. As far as I can see, that leaves us two alternatives:

1. Allow hybrids made with different varieties have their own registered names, or
2. Allow splitting of varieties into different specific names.

Either one opens the proverbial "can of worms" on the registration front, and worse in the public domain. Both are already a mess, the first because a non-rigorous, literally antiquated system is being used today, and the second because even the most seriously focused individuals make mistakes, forget things, and assume others, leading to the quality of the "documentation" being garbage.

 

[Ozpaph]

How did the RHS allow both names to be registered?

 

[Phred]

I think we're arguing the same point. Right now, the "flaw" is that GenusA speciesA v.1 and GenusA speciesA v.2 are considered the same species when it comes to grex naming and registration. As far as I can see, that leaves us two alternatives:

1. Allow hybrids made with different varieties have their own registered names, or
2. Allow splitting of varieties into different specific names.

Either one opens the proverbial "can of worms" on the registration front, and worse in the public domain. Both are already a mess, the first because a non-rigorous, literally antiquated system is being used today, and the second because even the most seriously focused individuals make mistakes, forget things, and assume others, leading to the quality of the "documentation" being garbage.

RHS allows hybrids made with accepted varieties to be registered... that is in compliance with your condition #1.
As for people making mistakes... it can happen either way

How did the RHS allow both names to be registered?

Not only does RHS see this as a legitimate hybrid as registered... they also contacted Wenqing to make sure she did not use villosum var laichaunum when she made her cross.

 

[Ozpaph]

I suppose that fits with WBW vs JB registration

 

[Ray]

I stand corrected and better informed (I have not looked into registration in decades).