Paphiopedilum rungsuriyanum

[Ray]

they have shown up on pre order lists for tamiami and redlands

From????

 

[annica.jarvela]

Hi Hamiltons,
Thank you for clearing that out, I thought it was the with the flower. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. The plant looks nice, really.

Yes, I saw that the smaller green plant was/ is druryi. I like druryi as well. Have one now (Indian Runner x Bear) and second one is coming.
Thank you again and good luck with your plants.

 

[BrucherT]

they have shown up on pre order lists for tamiami and redlands

Whose preorder lists please?

 

[richgarrison]

In charm

And. Dunno why I assumed because it was in tamiami that it would also be on Redlands. Nothing to say but sorry for the miss statement. I reached out for a copy of the Redlands list to see if they still had it available.

 

[tnyr5]

That doesn't mean they're legal...

 

[annica.jarvela]

Hi, tnyr5 and others. To what is that based on that rungsuriyanum would be illegal in US?

 

[Tony]

Hi, tnyr5 and others. To what is that based on that rungsuriyanum would be illegal in US?

U.S. law requires that the home country of the plant, Laos in this case, allowed export of the species with proper permits and CITES documents. Even if the plants being imported into the U.S. come from a different country those plants must be traceable to a legal export from the home country.

My understanding is that most of Europe and Asia are a bit looser on the CITES requirement and will accept any import/export with permits, so a plant can be smuggled out of Laos into another country and propagated there and then be legally exportable to much of the world but not the U.S.

 

[noochka1]

What does their appearance on this list mean, exactly? Will you please elaborate?

 

[Tom-DE]

Be careful what you are saying or posting here if you don't know.... (Just my two cents)
Where is Chicago Chad? He disappeared here ever since someone here accused him of "something"
Maybe Chad is hiding with a new name here...... LOL!

 

[NYEric]

What's the question?

 

[Tom-DE]

What's the question?

Do you have a good answer, Sir?

 

[tnyr5]

Essentially what we're saying is "resist temptation until everything is on the up and up."

 

[Tom-DE]

Essentially what we're saying is "resist temptation until everything is on the up and up."

I agree!
...but I think some may try to speculate something here and that is not a wise thing to do.

 

[annica.jarvela]

Hi everyone. Thank you, Tony, for your explanation. I read about CITES earlier and even ordered AOS Magazine or Bulletin for several years.

And yes, I know that in Asia, many plants are being collected from the wild and sold for a `tuppence` and smuggled to other countries. Can`t say of European countries in general, but Finland has always had extremely strict rules and laws about bringing in plants or any goods. If someone tried to smuggle for example plants, they were taken away from you by customs and destroyed. Some vendors in Central Europe didn`t want to trouble themselves by selling plants to Finland, because of the terrible paper war. Now inside the EU, it`s different, but still, if you`re trying to order plants from Asia or USA, or just outside the EU is about out of the question. The permissions and all the papers cost much more also.

I read earlier that several Paphiopedilums were smuggled out of Laos to Thailand in early 2014 and Mr Rungruang got several plants of P. canhii. He did not know before the rungsyriyanum plants flowered in his greenhouse in May 2014 that all plants were not canhii. So at least one could argue that can you smuggle something you don`t know anything of, but of course, you have smuggled them too. Then some plants were sent to Germany to Olaf Gruss for identification.

Research Gate says that for studying purposes they have collected in situ plants from Laos and exported them with CITES papers legally. Don`t know about the plants that are grown around the US and Europe, where they come from, from Mr Rungruang's plants or from legally imported plants. They have been around for nine years now, so can you say that they are illegal still? Perhaps, but does it matter anymore? Would imagine that US Government must know of this. And what about orchids before CITES, are they smuggled illegally or didn`t anyone care? It was a different world back then.

I do not mean or want to irritate anyone or make you nice people angry, and I don`t want any argument over this, so PLEASE, do not get upset over my writing. I was just curious. This is also NOT directed to any person.

 

[geoffsharris]

Much electronic ink has been spilled on this topic. Any country not subject to CITES doesn't care. The Europeans that are subject to CITES have essentially decided that anything produced in vitro regardless of its origin is essentially OK. Whether this is specifically true by law in all countries, I don't know, but it is the way it is being enforced for the most part. As stated above, the US has historically taken the more militant position that if a species was never validly exported from its country of origin, then any subsequent in vitro derived plants are still considered improperly imported and subject to CITES enforcement. The gray area is that crosses are not part of CITES, so a hybrid cross with an "illegal" plant can be imported. This is also why you see dubious claims of plant distributions of species to include China or Thailand for plants that have not been legally exported from adjacent countries.
US fish and wildlife has done some crazy things over the years enforcing CITES - see anything about Phrag kovachii, Paph vienamense or George Norris. They seem to have recognized that this degree of over zealousness has not really been a good use of resources and "spectacular busts" of orchid smugglers have been few and far between in the last 10 years. That being said, if you came into possession of rungsuriyanum that you were sure had no impact on wild plants (so you feel morally OK with it), you still couldn't show such a plant at a US orchid show, and it would be unwise to tell others about it lest USF&W decide to change their posture back to a more aggressive stance.
I think this is more of a personal evaluation. I think we can all agree that a small number of plants taken from the wild and quickly artificially propagated is the best way to remove the incentive to further extirpate the species from the wild. The question then becomes, does one follow a largely ineffective and counter productive law, because it is still the law or ignore it and take the risk of consequence for doing so.
Buying collected rare plants that puts pressure on wild populations without proper export is a whole other thing that I think most of us would agree is on the wrong side of the line.
Not intersted in a debate - just clarifying why people in various regions of the world may have different perspectives and risks they are or aren't taking by owning a plant like Paph rungsuriyanum.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Much electronic ink has been spilled on this topic. Any country not subject to CITES doesn't care. The Europeans that are subject to CITES have essentially decided that anything produced in vitro regardless of its origin is essentially OK. Whether this is specifically true by law in all countries, I don't know, but it is the way it is being enforced for the most part. As stated above, the US has historically taken the more militant position that if a species was never validly exported from it's country of origin, then any subsequent in vitro derived plants are still considered improperly imported and subject to CITES enforcement. The gray area is that crosses are not part of CITES, so a hybrid cross with an "illegal" plant can be imported. This is also why you see dubious claims of plant distributions of species to include China or Thailand for plants that have not been legally exported from adjacent countries.
US fish and wildlife has done some crazy things over the years enforcing CITES - see anything about Phrag kovachii, Paph vienamense or George Norris. They seem to have recognized that this degree of over zealousness has not really been a good use of resources and "spectacular busts" of orchid smugglers have been few and far between in the last 10 years. That being said, if you came into possession of rungsuriyanum that you were sure had no impact on wild plants (so you feel morally OK with it), you still couldn't show such a plant at a US orchid show, and it would be unwise to tell others about it lest USF&W decide to change their posture back to a more aggressive stance.
I think this is more of a personal evaluation. I think we can all agree that a small number of plants taken from the wild and quickly artificially propagated is the best way to remove the incentive to further extirpate the species from the wild. The question then becomes, does one follow a largely ineffective and counter productive law, because it is still the law or ignore it and take the risk of consequence for doing so.
Buying collected rare plants that puts pressure on wild populations without proper export is a whole other thing that I think most of us would agree is on the wrong side of the line.
Not intersted in a debate - just clarifying why people in various regions of the world may have different perspectives and risks they are or aren't taking by owning a plant like Paph rungsuriyanum.

Very well said Geoffs.

CITES was supposed to protect the exploitation and destruction of wild plant populations. It had good intentions. But like laws to cut off illegal trade, there are ways around it in the black market.

There are two options that may need to happen (similar to what Geoffs had laid out).

First, the CITES must be reviewed and reformed to allow the legal propagation of species that are being threatened. A good example is the Phragmipedium kovachii, where certain nurseries were allowed to obtain seeds and slowly introduce into the market. This has reduced the wild population risk of extinction. If this was done for rungs and Bulbo. kubahense, it would not have created such madness.

Second, there must be an allowance by CITES for botanical gardens to receive and study new orchid discoveries, esp at the countries of origin. This will allow them to artificially propagate in their countries (then shared and distributed to botanical gardens worldwide who can introduce to nurseries, like how vietnamense was eventually released) so that the demand from the habitats is reduced considerably. The stigma currently attached to anyone (or an institution) taking a wild orchid is so abhorrent that no one dares to say anything for fear of being criticized as morally corrupt. We know this method works.

Though the above might eventually be a possibility (we hope), there is also the native collectors, who are paid to raid the orchid habitats. By educating the local population on the conservation and introducing orchid growing projects (like the Million Orchid Project in the US in high schools), it can change the attitude of the next generation to be more aware of their actions. By giving them other avenues of income such as nursery and horticultural skills that grow plants/veggies/fruits for sale (any related trade skills), they would not have to raid the forests to survive. That is of course a country issue, but it's a start of an idea.

As for the current dilemma of the rungs in the trade, there are too many in collections that have been sourced from artificial propagation from the initial jungle plants. In fact, we are now in third to fourth generation of selfings from selected sibs. For CITES to come in and seize them to destroy would not only be an arduous task (think hundreds of homes, if not thousands) but illogical as it defeats the purpose of saving an endangered species. Though it is inconceivable in the CITES framework, this 'illegal' propagation and sale of the rungs have somehow saved them from complete extinction and destruction! Although I do not condone this activity, I have seen what it has done for rungs. Perhaps there is a silver lining after all.

 

[annica.jarvela]

Geoffsharris,Thank you so much for your post, Sir. There is much truth in that. It would be great if everyone would follow the rules. To us private growers, we just have to trust that the vendors who are propagating and growing plants, that they are following the laws. In Europe the vendors often are announcing on their website, that their plants are not collected from the wild, but artificially propagated. Either from seed or by meristem. But who knows. But, like zoo's, it's good that plants are alive somewhere. It's not just over collecting, it's destroing their habitats, that is the problem.

 

[annica.jarvela]

You are so right DrLeslie. They are already protecting succesfully wild life by teaching the locals, how important it is. In South America and also elsewhere they are mixing different seeds of trees from the jungle and spreading them to nature. They also plant trees on many countries. Big problem is destroying the rainforests to grow just one species or logging or for grazing cattle. Locals have to earn their living somehow. But it can be done also by protecting and saving plants and animals. We people need them as well to survive.

Maybe we can stop this discussion now and concentrate to growing our orchids.
I thank you all, you have been so great, and I have learned a lot of US laws and regulations and other important things.
Thanks!!!

 

[Mafate]

This is my rungsuriyanum and 1 canhii all growing in grodan cubes that suits them excellent, keeping them moist and letting them dry out a bit between waterings, 4 rungsuriyanum whereas 3 is in but, I am so excited, the canhii bloomed a few weeks ago

Hi hamiltons,

You seem to grow successfully lots of rungsuriyanum, so can you give us more details about the conditions you give them? Range of temperatures, fertilizer, watering, etc.? Do you grow your canhii the same way?

Regards