I have started a decent collection of godefroyae and godefroyae var. leucochilum. This one is '39' x 'Red Pearl ' and was purchased from Odom's.
Paphiopedilum godefroyae
- Thread starter Djthomp28
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Really beautiful
Paphman910
Well-Known Member
Looks beautiful!
How do you grow it?
Any suggestion for potting mix would be good. I can't seem to get it to have more than one growth at a time.
How do you grow it?
Any suggestion for potting mix would be good. I can't seem to get it to have more than one growth at a time.
just about the right amount of markings for my taste
Nice color on this one.
Almost a pure white pouch.
Almost a pure white pouch.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 258
This is very nice one! I wonder how it compares to Krull-Smith's recently awarded FCC line. Saw him posting it in FB.
Nice colour form
Darlene, this one is great 
and as Stephen already mentioned ...the markings a intense but not too intense.
Leslie, Darlene resisted the temptation to name it var. leucochilum.
and as Stephen already mentioned ...the markings a intense but not too intense.Leslie, Darlene resisted the temptation to name it var. leucochilum.
Wisely so...'cause it ain't! However, a very beautiful godefroyae, that should fill the chest of any owner with intense joy and pride!Leslie, Darlene resisted the temptation to name it var. leucochilum.
The FCC was very full and flat. Plus it was a pure leucochilum.
DJ’s still a ways to go but the future is bright.
The tag does say leucochilum. Hehehe
I received Braem's latest paph book. The first section I went to was the Paph godefroyae section
.
Good assessment @DrLeslieEe comparing mine to Frank Smith's FCC. Although mine has improved as it matures, it's unlikely to reach the fullness and flatness of an FCC.
Here is a side view:
Here is a side view:
Arne
Well-Known Member
They do tend to open up more when the plant matures. My niveum was ridiculously cupped for the first couple of years but nowadays I think it is looking quite good.
hope
Active Member
Wow! Amazing! Thanks for showing us. How long have you been growing it?
Thank you. I have been growing this one since April 2020. This is the third time it has bloomed for me, and each time the flower improves a bit. This is a pic of the first time it bloomed. The petals are fuller now; and it is less cupped now, but it is still a bit cuppy.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2022
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 244
Lovely flower and beautiful plant, congrats!
Like the spotting.
Like the spotting.
By second thought, Darlene, I find your flower is the epitome of a beautiful godefroyae form - and so much more natural looking than the flatter godefroyaes.
The flatter than flat ones somewhat bring to mind some of the dog races bred ad absurdum as f.ex. pekingeses, where the breeding efforts for flat noses have resulted in severe breathing difficulties and eyes that sometimes pop out of their sockets.
I somehow find it a bit crazy, that very limited aesthetic criterias seem to form the basis for judging - and ruling out such a gorgeous flower as Darlene's to reach the highest echelons of judging. Of course criteria of rounder, larger and darker/stronger colours are so easily understandable, that they can be applied by a bright 3 year old. Why flatness in godefroyae is a trait, that is especially desirable, I can't fathom - as well as why Rothschildianum petals have to be horizontal to count positively in the score? I've seen gorgeous and harmonius Roths, where this was not the case - and thus find the criteria of horizontality a rather arbitrary aesthetic value, akin to a fad of fashion.
If 'harmonious naturalness' (or something along that line) was added as a criteria
in the judging process, we might steer clear of the pekingese-problem, i.e. linebred Paph-species so far from the naturally occuring plants, that they exude an air of artifice and affectation - and a more natural appearing beauty as Darlene's godefroyae would get the due it deserves!
The flatter than flat ones somewhat bring to mind some of the dog races bred ad absurdum as f.ex. pekingeses, where the breeding efforts for flat noses have resulted in severe breathing difficulties and eyes that sometimes pop out of their sockets.
I somehow find it a bit crazy, that very limited aesthetic criterias seem to form the basis for judging - and ruling out such a gorgeous flower as Darlene's to reach the highest echelons of judging. Of course criteria of rounder, larger and darker/stronger colours are so easily understandable, that they can be applied by a bright 3 year old. Why flatness in godefroyae is a trait, that is especially desirable, I can't fathom - as well as why Rothschildianum petals have to be horizontal to count positively in the score? I've seen gorgeous and harmonius Roths, where this was not the case - and thus find the criteria of horizontality a rather arbitrary aesthetic value, akin to a fad of fashion.
If 'harmonious naturalness' (or something along that line) was added as a criteria
in the judging process, we might steer clear of the pekingese-problem, i.e. linebred Paph-species so far from the naturally occuring plants, that they exude an air of artifice and affectation - and a more natural appearing beauty as Darlene's godefroyae would get the due it deserves!
Ahhhh but you see there are naturally flatter and rounder occurring godefroyaes.
The human need for bigger, rounder and better form is inherent in our genes for purposes of reproduction (and survival). This want of such traits is extended to all aspects of our lives subconsciously. And in judging, it’s just expressed openly since the start of judging a century ago.
If you don’t believe me, take this exercise:
You’re at a show, and you see two godefroyaes for sale for same price. Both same markings and color, but one is rounder and seemingly flatter. Which one would you take?
Another easier exercise:
If there are two apples, one bigger and redder, other smaller and dull…. which would you choose?
If one is truthful to oneself and not think about the topic at hand, one will unconsciously choose the rounder, bigger and more colorful option.
Thoughts?
Caveat: There’s absolutely no problem appreciating and admiring the natural look of flowers that don’t fall within the parameters of man-made judging rules of flower beauty.
For example, I for one love ALL shapes and colors of the Cattleya eldorado/wallisii group, no matter how ugly it is to anyone.
The human need for bigger, rounder and better form is inherent in our genes for purposes of reproduction (and survival). This want of such traits is extended to all aspects of our lives subconsciously. And in judging, it’s just expressed openly since the start of judging a century ago.
If you don’t believe me, take this exercise:
You’re at a show, and you see two godefroyaes for sale for same price. Both same markings and color, but one is rounder and seemingly flatter. Which one would you take?
Another easier exercise:
If there are two apples, one bigger and redder, other smaller and dull…. which would you choose?
If one is truthful to oneself and not think about the topic at hand, one will unconsciously choose the rounder, bigger and more colorful option.
Thoughts?
Caveat: There’s absolutely no problem appreciating and admiring the natural look of flowers that don’t fall within the parameters of man-made judging rules of flower beauty.
For example, I for one love ALL shapes and colors of the Cattleya eldorado/wallisii group, no matter how ugly it is to anyone.
Last edited:
Jens, I just LOVE your statement: the human wish to turn every unique species flower shape into a flat round big pancake that even the real pollinators would no longer recognize is making me really sad. I am fully happy with looking for round shapes in hybrids, but absolutely not for species. I really belief we are breeding the diversity out of species in culture. I think species selecting should be on vigor, growing speed, maybe size a bit but not on trying to change the natural shape diversity...
Darlene, a wonderful plant , with a wonderful flower shape !
Agreed… some species like purpuratums are wonderful as is.
And yes, for the record, this is a lovely godefroyae, Darlene. They get bigger on subsequent blooms.
