You can become a Supporting Member or just click here to donate.
Hi RichardLooks like anitum pictured there... but your post says stonei... ??
Hi DJHere is my stonei as a reference photo. Not the pollen parent of this cross, but thought it would help for reference.
This is definately not stonei - look at the bent-knee staminode (typical of Rothschildianum) - and compare it with Djthopm's true stonei.I was finally able to get a photo of the actual pollen parent of this cross. It’s a very nice Paph stonii. I have a few more seedlings available if anyone is interested.View attachment 24579
Totally agree with you on that!This is definately not stonei - look at the bent-knee staminode (typical of Rothschildianum) - and compare it with Djthopm's true stonei.
I would put my money on your plant being Lady Isobel (syn. Lady Isabel - Roth x Stonei), but a very nice one to that!
This is definately not stonei - look at the bent-knee staminode (typical of Rothschildianum) - and compare it with Djthopm's true stonei.
I would put my money on your plant being Lady Isobel (syn. Lady Isabel - Roth x Stonei), but a very nice one to that!
The plant in question came from Jerry Fischer several years ago. As I understand this plant is the result of a selfing of a stonei Jerry called ‘Fernbrook’ x self. ‘Fernbrook’ was supposed to be a4N.Totally agree with you on that!
Bear with me for being blunt: you have to be blind as a mole for not seeing, that the staminode of the plant, you present in your photo, in no way conforms to the botanical description of the staminode of P. stonei ("staminode yellow ..... convex, subcircular, truncate or incised at apex, 14 mm long, 11 mm wide, margins coarsely hairy", Cribb, 2014; "The staminode is oval-oblong, yellowish-white, fringed and densely covered with bristle-like hairs except for the glabrous front", Braem et al. 1998).The photo is not clear enough for me to get an accurate look at the staminode.
The only way any confirmation from him would make sense, would be if you have sent him the photo, posted here. And I can't imagine, that he would risk his professional reputation by claiming a plant to be P. stonei, that so clearly do not adhere to the botanical description of the species!I sent Jerry [Fischer] an email to confirm and I’ll post after I hear back from him.
So I got a new photo in good light (not taken with sunset light coming in from the side) and a front on shot of the staminode. I sent the photos to a number of judges and you are correct... the pollen parent is Paphiopedilum Lady Isabel. I have corrected the cross with RHS leaving the name the same. Thanks for pointing this out...This is definately not stonei - look at the bent-knee staminode (typical of Rothschildianum) - and compare it with Djthopm's true stonei.
I would put my money on your plant being Lady Isobel (syn. Lady Isabel - Roth x Stonei), but a very nice one to that!
Justin... you are correct the cross with Lady Isabel is probably a much better cross.Silver lining: the Lady Isabel parent should actually make for an even better hybrid.
Enter your email address to join: