Phrag. fischeri

[John M]

Most likely they did not collect the plants themselves. Likely they purchase collected plants from local people that don't understand what they are actually collecting or the importance of remembering where a particular plant was found. The collector probably could have remembered where they were collecting but how much time passed before the new plant was noticed? Euc. probably does not have any idea who actually pulled the plant from the wild or where it came from. If they actually did know the location more plants would be circulating by now regardless of the remoteness of the location.

No logic or leaps of faith involved at all. I have lived and worked ("collected") in South America for a lot of time and I know how the "culture" functions. I don't have any faith in anything I am told from anyone down there and logic does not apply either. On top of that since photoshop found it's way into that environment I don't trust simple photos either. Before I would believe the photo you linked to showing fischeri in situ I would need to see more pictures because to me that image with the flower looks suspicious and as you say proves nothing.

Lance: Because of the way you have written it, the top paragraph is conjecture on your part, not fact. The "logic" and "faith" that I refer to is in your argument, not the word of the people you've met in S.A. Using words and phrases like "probably" and "most likely", indicate that you are making educated guesses about what happened with fischeri. You seem to feel justified in doing this because you have experience and knowledge about "....how the culture functions" in South America. I tend to agree with your opinion and think you are pretty close, if not right on the mark (because what you say is logical); but, it's still not fact, just because you say it....it is your opinion.

 

[gonewild]

Lance: Because of the way you have written it, the top paragraph is conjecture on your part, not fact. The "logic" and "faith" that I refer to is in your argument, not the word of the people you've met in S.A. Using words and phrases like "probably" and "most likely", indicate that you are making educated guesses about what happened with fischeri. You seem to feel justified in doing this because you have experience and knowledge about "....how the culture functions" in South America. I tend to agree with your opinion and think you are pretty close, if not right on the mark (because what you say is logical); but, it's still not fact, just because you say it....it is your opinion.

Correct what I said about the species is not fact. That is why I carefully used words like "probably".

 

[John M]

Correct what I said about the species is not fact. That is why I carefully used words like "probably".

********. You argued your point and defended it when I said: "Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. ......your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay."

 

[gonewild]

********. You argued your point and defended it when I said: "Of course Lance, I'm capable of making similar guesses. What I was looking for were proven facts and in-situ photos. ......your reply makes a lot of assumptions and leaps of faith, based on reasonable logic, as indictated in red. Unfortunately, reasonable logic and leaps of faith prove nothing. I was originally wondering if Kyle had more information that was undeniable and which was properly documented, not just hearsay."

[********.

No, I never use it. Too high in ammonia. I suggest you try a little K-lite.

You argued your point and defended it

I was not defending my point, I was defining it.
I was not arguing my point at all. If I wanted to argue the point you refer to I would have asked you... what makes you capable or qualified to make a similar guess?

But I did not ask that because I was not arguing and I don't even have a point I need to make.

 

[Rick]

No, I never use it. Too high in ammonia. I suggest you try a little K-lite.

Speaking of K lite (and fisheri).

My first fisherii came from Orchid Babies (I think originally came from OL anyway) several years ago. Back in my RO/MSU days. They were slow growing. I did get 1 to bloom (1st bloom distorted), and now and then they produced a new growth, but ultimately they burnt out after a few years. I also played games with bone meal and oyster shell with these since they are purportedly from a higher pH/calcareous site.

But last year I got two new seedlings from Jerry Fisher. Under K lite they are growing fantastically. No second growths yet, but I can tell roots are doing very well. I moved the smaller/paler one into a basket mount a month ago, and it has caught up to the bigger one, and is almost indistiguishable by leaf color. The bigger one (still in its origininal bark mix) looks like its thinking about spiking.

 

[gonewild]

Speaking of K lite (and fisheri).

My first fisherii came from Orchid Babies (I think originally came from OL anyway) several years ago. Back in my RO/MSU days. They were slow growing. I did get 1 to bloom (1st bloom distorted), and now and then they produced a new growth, but ultimately they burnt out after a few years. I also played games with bone meal and oyster shell with these since they are purportedly from a higher pH/calcareous site.

But last year I got two new seedlings from Jerry Fisher. Under K lite they are growing fantastically. No second growths yet, but I can tell roots are doing very well. I moved the smaller/paler one into a basket mount a month ago, and it has caught up to the bigger one, and is almost indistiguishable by leaf color. The bigger one (still in its origininal bark mix) looks like its thinking about spiking.

I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?

 

[John M]

I was not defending my point, I was defining it.
I was not arguing my point at all. If I wanted to argue the point you refer to I would have asked you... what makes you capable or qualified to make a similar guess?

I am not qualified to make any guesses. I never made any guesses. That's why I posted my questions! You're not following the context of this discussion...which makes it impossible for this discussion to be informative or useful to anyone. I'd forgotten what it was like to discuss anything with you. This is not about your ego, or you winning; it's about the facts surrounding the provenance of fischeri. If you can't contribute without twisting the content to make yourself look like you've winning an argument, then there's no point in discussing anything with you. I'm done.

 

[gonewild]

That was easy.

 

[Rick]

I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?

I guess we'll need to check with OL on the parentage history.

What in the photo (other than it is not in a cultivated field) suggests a low nutrient system?

The substrate is so covered with moss and ferns, I can't tell if its rock or soil under the moss. Unless you assume or know that moss and ferns are inherently low nutirient plants. But that's probably good for about 90% of orchids anyway.

The incline is steep (good drainage regardless), but can't tell how much water is oozing down, and given we can't see for more than a few feet around the plant, we can't tell what any water is passing through on the way down (like a manure pile?).


Odds are good it's comparable to kovachii habitat which also is doing good for me on K lite in a basket (EC kept below 300 useimens/cm).

 

[gonewild]

What in the photo (other than it is not in a cultivated field) suggests a low nutrient system?

The substrate is so covered with moss and ferns, I can't tell if its rock or soil under the moss. Unless you assume or know that moss and ferns are inherently low nutirient plants. But that's probably good for about 90% of orchids anyway.

The incline is steep (good drainage regardless), but can't tell how much water is oozing down, and given we can't see for more than a few feet around the plant, we can't tell what any water is passing through on the way down (like a manure pile?).


Odds are good it's comparable to kovachii habitat which also is doing good for me on K lite in a basket (EC kept below 300 useimens/cm).

I don't see many ferns or deep lush moss. What I see is a steep bank either hard clay or rock covered with very short moss. The short moss indicates low fertility and somewhat dry conditions. There is no grass or other large plants growing close to the phrag. If you look at the fern on the right side of the picture the fronds are covered with mud that matched the mud over the moss and on the phrag leaves. This all looks like a "flash flood" coming down the bank. Since there are the mud deposits this is an indication the formation is mud rather than rock and moss. There is another phrag growing to the left just out of the picture so perhaps the colony is excluded from the picture and is in a completely different setting, who knows for sure. Guess after Olaf tells us we will know the answer.

 

[Drorchid]

I wonder if the new seedlings originate from the same parents or are they a newer F generation? If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?

All our Phrag fischeri's originate from the first described Phrag. fischeri, called Phrag. fischeri 'Jerry's Dream'. All Phrag. fischeri's self-pollinate, so the first generation seedlings were selfings of Phrag. fischeri 'Jerry's Dream', later generations were sib crosses and selfings of first generation seedlings or second generation seedlings. I do think that each generation the plants were getting stronger and more vigorous, as each time we would use a plant as a parent we would select the strongest and most vigorous grower. Below is a picture of one our our latest selections. This plant is a probable spontaneous tetraploid, as the flowers are about twice as big as a regular fischeri, and the petals feel much thicker (I still have to confirm it by counting the chromosomes) Also interestingly the ovary gets about twice as long, and it does NOT self-pollinate!

Robert

 

[nikv]

^ ^

What a gorgeous flower, Robert! Thanks for sharing it with us!

 

[Rick]

If the photo of the wild plant linked to in this thread is real then fischeri grows in a low nutrient environment for sure. Your move to you basket culture supports that idea. Can you post pics of them in the baskets?

Here are my two fischeri. They are both about 6.5" span now, but a few months ago the one in the basket was considerably smaller and paler. I bought them from OL I think August or September of last year. Lycaste53 (Gina) also picked up a couple from the same batch.

If you look hard, you can see a root coming out of the pot. Moss growth has accelerated quite a bit since I started watering for EC management. (I guess that means nutrient reduction).

 

[NYEric]

That was easy.

Touche!- :rollhappy:

 

[FrankRC]

As Kyle said, the only person I've heard of that's actually visited the Phrag. fischeri habitat recently was Frank Cervera, supposedly for the purpose of shooting a marketing video for Ecuagenera. Pepe Portilla was supposed to have accompanied him. Beyond that, I don't know of anyone who has visited the habitat because of the politically sensitive nature of the area.

The habitat of phrag fischeri and phrag andrettate are in areas that, currently, are too dangerous to visit without local guides and help and entails several hours of hiking up and down ridges each way through a rain forest dotted with cocoa and poppy fields. I would not advise or encourage anyone to attempt a visit to these habitats currently. One must survivie several military inspections and check points just to get to the jumping off area. The area is volitile. Just don't do it.

Pepe Portilla from Ecuagenera does have these plants available, as well as copies of the DVD on Ecuadorian Phrag's we made together (not a marketing video), and the fischeri habitat is included. If you see Ecuagenera at an orchid show they should have DVD's available. We were lucky to catch the fischeri in bloom and the rest of the DVD is beautiful as well. Unfortunately, the fischeri habitat has very few plants left due to over collecting and recent landslides that wiped out over 50% of the plants. There are a few plants left in almost inaccessable locations and the hope is that they can, over time, replenish the population.

Fischeri grows on exposed granite cliff surfaces with constant seepage intermixed with phrag longiflolium. The habitat is warm, bordering on hot, humid and bright and that is how I culture my plants. Airflow must be copious. I have a few pictures of the species growing side by side... As the fischeri habitat is not located on the side of the road it can postulated that the two species grow side by side naturally and have for quite some time. The form of longifilium that grows in this habitat is spectacular...

I have also had the opportunity to see many mansurii and schlimii and after 14 years of visits to the habitats in and around the Ecuadorian/Columbia border I am not convinced fischeri/schlimii/mansurii are distict species. I have seen plants of mansurii that match fischeri in floral and vegetative characteristics as well as forms that match schlimii. Mansurii connects every distinguishable characteristic between fischeri and schlimii into one curve. Andrettae however, is in my mind, for the moment, distinct due to several habitat/floral characteristics.

 

[NYEric]

Thanks for the info. I'll ask about the DVD next time I find Ecuagenera at a show.

 

[Rick]

Fischeri grows on exposed granite cliff surfaces with constant seepage intermixed with phrag longiflolium. The habitat is warm, bordering on hot, humid and bright and that is how I culture my plants. Airflow must be copious. I have a few pictures of the species growing side by side... As the fischeri habitat is not located on the side of the road it can postulated that the two species grow side by side naturally and have for quite some time. The form of longifilium that grows in this habitat is spectacular...

Can you percieve any difference in culture requirements for longifolium vs. fisheri?

Should you be able to grow them side by side in the same GH without doing anything different for them?

 

[FrankRC]

Can you percieve any difference in culture requirements for longifolium vs. fisheri?

Should you be able to grow them side by side in the same GH without doing anything different for them?

From my perspective, there is no difference in culture. Both species generally enjoy bright light and copious amounts of water at the roots... Not flowing over or sitting on the plant, at the roots. The cliff surfaces that make up this habitat are covered in wet mud that is held in place by the vegetation.

 

[Rick]

From my perspective, there is no difference in culture. Both species generally enjoy bright light and copious amounts of water at the roots... Not flowing over or sitting on the plant, at the roots. The cliff surfaces that make up this habitat are covered in wet mud that is held in place by the vegetation.

Thanks Frank

That's been kind of my point with regards to a lot of the culture advice that seems to vary species by species.

From a toxicologist standpoint we see multitudes of species existing under the exact same environmental conditions, but with considerably differing sensitivities to different toxicants.

My longifolium has done fantastic over the years (it got even better low K), but fischeri sitting within a foot or two of them on the bench haven't done well until I cut K way down and made an effort to keep pot EC low.

The difference in sensitivity (or tolerance) could have just as much to do with just the size difference between the two plants as oposed to a species specific size adjusted tolerance.

 

[cnycharles]

sounds likely, and though things can grow close together in the woods/jungle, sometimes the microclimate is different. if one species is growing in a slightly higher or lower spot, or one that is wet but not cliff runoff and other is on cliff, there likely are different root conditions, though from a distance they both may look like they grow 'sunny, wet and hot'. especially if under one tree there is one mycorrhizae and another under the other (just examples for thought)