Phrag. exstaminodium Revisited

[Rick]

Is Extra Rich the hybrid for sale off of Woodstream Orchids?


This whole thread reminds me of an old thread regarding the utility (or ethics!) of hybridizing closely related species. I think this thread is a case in point.

There doesn't seem to be any significant advancement of science or aesthetics, but there is definitely a whole lot of anguish and confusion.

The only real utility I can see from a conservation standpoint that if exstams are so rare in the wild, and the odds of losing the handful of imported plants is high at least 50% of the genes will be saved in Dixler crosses. These can ultimately be backcrossed (repeatedly)to get something 95% exstam again.

Kind of like they are doing with American Chestnuts.

 

[Rick]

Robert, do you know of any direct jungle collected divisions of exstaminodium in the US?

It sounds like from your history we went from an unspecified handful of divisions in the early 1970's to maybe a single plant making it to Dixler in the early 90's. From which all present staminode less plants in the US are descended from.

And we are presently up to F3 generation. (??)

 

[Drorchid]

Robert, do you know of any direct jungle collected divisions of exstaminodium in the US?

It sounds like from your history we went from an unspecified handful of divisions in the early 1970's to maybe a single plant making it to Dixler in the early 90's. From which all present staminode less plants in the US are descended from.

And we are presently up to F3 generation. (??)

So far I know, I think all exstaminodiums that are currently in the US indeed are all derived from Dixlers plants. And yes our 'Extraordinary' was a 2nd generation (it was a selfing from Dixlers plant), making the selfings of 'Extraordinary' third generation seedlings.

Regarding crossing different closely related species together, I think this case is a little different, as we do not no the true identity of the 'Gandalf' plant (was it derived from the selfing, or from the cross with caudatum). I am still OK with crossing different plants together (when they are closely related, and you know for sure what they are) as long as you keep good records, but I do agree (as this case proves) that records sometimes get mixed up, and then you end up with a mess...

In this case, until we know for sure what 'Gandalf' is, I probably won't use it for further hybridizing. Originally I was going to cross the 'Gandalf' x self with our exstaminodium's, but I probably won't do that now.

Robert

 

[Rick]

http://www2.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/534/cap10.pdf

Here's an article on the conservation status of exstaminodium

It's in Spanish, but I used the google translator to some success.

At least when this assessment was conducted there were at least 4 major populations of this plants in the wild. None seem to be much more than a few thousand strong, and very little juvenile recruitment. There is a significant local collection pressure as well as habitat destruction.

The authors were very pessimistic about in situ conservation of this taxon. (there was some internal debate as to whether this taxon should be elevated to species level, and it looks like they concluded for reasons below that it should be left at subspecies of "humboldtii").

Part of what I got out of this article was that several plants made it to Europe (England) and some actually made it to Rand's in California. The dates seem to be in the mid 80's, and the legality of the plants importation appears in doubt.

There is also a section that didn't translate that good that appears to state that many of the plants observed in situ had varying degrees of staminode present (which was part of the argument for not giving it species status).


Anyway those with better translation skills should give this paper the once over too.

 

[Phrag-Plus]

http://www2.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/534/cap10.pdf

Here's an article on the conservation status of exstaminodium

It's in Spanish, but I used the google translator to some success.

At least when this assessment was conducted there were at least 4 major populations of this plants in the wild. None seem to be much more than a few thousand strong, and very little juvenile recruitment. There is a significant local collection pressure as well as habitat destruction.

The authors were very pessimistic about in situ conservation of this taxon. (there was some internal debate as to whether this taxon should be elevated to species level, and it looks like they concluded for reasons below that it should be left at subspecies of "humboldtii").

Part of what I got out of this article was that several plants made it to Europe (England) and some actually made it to Rand's in California. The dates seem to be in the mid 80's, and the legality of the plants importation appears in doubt.

There is also a section that didn't translate that good that appears to state that many of the plants observed in situ had varying degrees of staminode present (which was part of the argument for not giving it species status).


Anyway those with better translation skills should give this paper the once over too.

Thank you very much for sharing Rick... This is a very very interesting article and still an interesting debate too for me.

I still wondering why they only talk about the missing staminode, and nothing about the flower structures... It look so different to me and from the first description of Castano, Hagsater Y Aguirre from 1980 in Orquiea (Mex.) 9 (2) Mayo 1984. Were the literatures mention than in the Chiapas colony, the missing staminode is stable even under artificial propagation.

But after reading that article, I will understand why they are considered it as a sub-specie level and why all that confusion. It bring me back at my first opinion when I first hear about that specie ‘a weird popowii’…
This before I’ve seen it in bloom for the first time, I’m still convicted than there is much more than just the missing staminode with the flower from the Chiapas, and more than just a subtle differences, they do have some very special characteristics. But I will agree with you, my opinion is base on some rare information and references. I never got the chance to work on those in the field. But man I would like if I had the time…

I should and will try to keep those specific characteristics alive as long as I can by reproducing those ‘‘different one’’ on the side and by there self.
And I think Robert got the same will and I think it is a very good idea too….
Maybe one day some DNA analyse will be done on it and I will be curious to see result…

Hybridization will bringing us some more info and clues in a near future, I’m just waiting to see the results…