Phrag ((kovachii x dalessandroi) x schlimii)

[tomkalina]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your insights regarding judging. If more people questioned why we judges do things the way we do, the system would be stronger. You bring up two interesting but separate issues here:

1) Judging Criteria as they apply to hybrids.

2) "Improvement" of the species through line-breeding.

1) When we judge hybrids, we must take into consideration what each of the
parents contribute in terms of color, form, size and floriferousness.
We then apply certain judging criteria to these characteristics to
determine whether the hybrid we're looking at represents an "improvement"
over the parents. This is not always an easy thing to do, especially if one
of the parents (P. kovachii) is spectacular in it's own right. And it is true
the judging criteria tend to favor those flowers that are rounder and fuller
than the parental stock. Unfortunately, this artificial application of a
trait that is considered "better" by human standards can lead us astray
unless we do the research necessary to really understand the breeding.
Let's face it; P. kovachii has some negative traits. The flowers fade, they
are ephemeral and the form changes as the flower matures. If these traits
are exhibited in it's hybrids, which is what we have seen in some of it's
hybrids so far, the probablility of a large number of awards to F-1 Pk
hybrids is slim - at least on the basis of current judging criteria.

2) As far as "improvement" of the species through line breeding, I couldn't
agree with you more. If we continue on this path of applying the "toward
roundness and fullness" criterium to (in this case) every slipper orchid
species, regardless of it's original form, pretty soon everything will look the
same and we will have undone thousands of years of species evolution in
the process by creating something that does not exist in nature. I call
this hybridization of the species and I'm not in favor of it. As an example,
look at the cover photo on Cribb's Vol. 1 "The Genus Paphiopedilum". It is
one of the best renditions of Paph. sukhakulii I've ever seen. Sadly, if we
applied our current criteria to it, it would have a hard time getting an AOS
award today, even though it is beautiful.

Thanks again for your input, Charles. I should add that my views on these matters are not necessarily the views of other AOS judges nor are they meant to create controversy as regards the AOS judging system.


Thanks!

 

[Erythrone]

It is very interesting to read all your comments.

I'm not a huge fan of kovachii too... and I don't really want to grow most of its hybrids... But I think they are steps for better plants (Hope you understant what I mean), aren't they?


cnycharles, you wrote "I'm more pointing out that maybe in this and many other cases more emphasis should be made by the judging system to judge for what looks good given the genes of the plants who are parents, and not forcing the expression to be round and flat, doing excessive line breeding to try and ferret out what we as humans think the flowers should look like, instead of what a flower looks like after hundreds or thousands of years of survival and adaptation?"

I think it is the same "problem" with all orchid species... and with many animals like dogs and cats. We want the Persian Cat to have very flat nose, short body, extra long hair. We don't mind if this is "good" for the species. We don't want to breed cats that looks like the species should be. And I am not sure many of them will survive as stray cats. Are we going to far?? Not sure. If we breed cats or dog, it is not for species conservation, is it?

I had persian cats for fun. I grow orchids for fun. I love them and I admire them. Sometimes, in the garden, I want to grow a plant because I want to contribute to the conservation of the species and it seems to me that it is important to keep the species as "natural" as possible (gene pool). But for ornemental horticulture purposes, I think it can be different.

 

[NYEric]

The solution is to join the AOS judging system and apply your selective reasoning to the judging process.
BTW, doesn't size matter?

 

[gonewild]

I'm going to share a few pictures of the Phrags that were used to make hybrids with kovachii by Alfredo Manrique.

Although they are pretty flowers and perhaps the best available in Peru they do not compare with the quality available here in the USA.

Until someone blooms a kovachii hybrid that was made with an award quality "flat" flower we shouldn't assume that kovachii does not make a good parent to produce "quality" flowers. How much of the petal reflex and poor shape comes from kovachii or the other parent?

Also bear in mind that all of the kovachii hybrids have been made with genetics from less tha 10 wild collected kovachii plants. When the plants were collected from the wild they were not necessarily the best "quality" genetics that exist in the species. They were only the best plants that were in bloom at the time of collection in a small area. Maybe they were not all even in bloom when collected?

So I think it wiser to not make assumptions about the quality of kovachii as a parent until we see some blooms made with the high quality flowers like OL is breeding with.

Personally I think all of the hybrids need to be remade with better parents before we will see the actual benefits or faults of the kovachii species.
Using the first kovachii hybrids as the foundation for the new line of breeding is a mistake that side-steps the years of quality selection done with the besseae hybrids.

Here are a few of the Phrag parents, I don't remember what the names are....

This one is a wild collected Peruvian P.besseae. I know Alfredo used pollen from this clone on kovachii
so when these bloom we will see the true results of the primary hybrid between the 2 species because
both parents are wild collected. But the results will not compare in "award" quality to what can be made
with a multi generation FCC besseae.

 

[tomkalina]

Hi Lance,

Thanks for your observations. IMHO - the tendency for Pk to transmit it's negative characteristics onto it's F-1 hybrids seems to be more a result of genetics than the form of the non-Pk parent, i.e. I don't think (kovachii x longifolium) is going to improve much by using a better longifolium.

Maybe the best primary results will occur when we introduce high quality tetraploid breeding plants as parental material on the other side of the hybrid equation. As far as the besseae hybrid comparison, the first hybrids were not as good as current breeding using high quality stock, but that is just a matter of degree, not one of dramatic difference. I don't think the next generation of Pk's F-1 hybrids made w higher quality parents will be much of an improvement over what we've seen so far, but I could be wrong. Maybe Dr. Orchid of OL would like to chime in on this thread?

Thanks,

 

[slippertalker]

The first picture looks like Phrag Cape Sunset, 2nd looks like Don Wimber and the third is Memoria Dick Clements

 

[slippertalker]

Just to join in the kovachii hybridizing conversation; It seems apparent that it has some well defined strengths and weaknesses as a parent.

Positive: size of flower, a short rhizome (especially compared to besseae), hybrids are easy to grow and bloom.

Negative: waffling of the flower as it ages, the wonderful pouch isn't expressed in the hybrids.

Neutral: color is not dominant and depends on other parent, although soft pinks are pretty typical unless crossed with besseae dominant hybrids.
Size of the plant is neutral but tends towards longifolium and sargentianum in size and vigor of the hybrids. Most phrag crosses have pretty limited color ranges until they get a bit more complex.

My opinion is that the kovachii hybrids are pretty exciting, and the backcrosses will be even better especially back onto besseae and kovachii.

 

[suss16]

Is it possible the first two the Don Wimber and Cape Sunset were either 3N of 4N. The toothiness of the petals on both make me wonder.

 

[gonewild]

Is it possible the first two the Don Wimber and Cape Sunset were either 3N of 4N. The toothiness of the petals on both make me wonder.

If they were 3N then there probably would not have been seed.
If they were 4N then there probably won't be any future crosses using them.
Unless some chromosome magic is done?

 

[Kevin]

Excellent discussion, and I totally agree with you, Charles. Excellent points made too about juding, breeding, etc. I happen to like kovachii, but I do agree that it has some negative points. I wonder what kovachii x besseae 'Rob's Choice' would look like - if it's not much different than what we've been seeing, then that will tell us a lot about the breeding potential of kovachii.

Just wondering - should this be made into it's own thread? Kind of a bit off topic from the specific flower that was the start of this thread.

 

[SlipperFan]

2) As far as "improvement" of the species through line breeding, I couldn't
agree with you more. If we continue on this path of applying the "toward
roundness and fullness" criterium to (in this case) every slipper orchid
species, regardless of it's original form, pretty soon everything will look the
same and we will have undone thousands of years of species evolution in
the process by creating something that does not exist in nature. I call
this hybridization of the species and I'm not in favor of it.

Yay, Tom! It is so good to read this from someone who has your reputation as a slipper expert, and not just a thought that rattles around in this very un-expert's brain (mine).

 

[Brian Monk]

Is anyone else having difficulty accessing the 4th page of his discussion?

FWIW, I think Tom's comments are dead on. I agree with his comments on judging, and our tendency to "hybridize the species." I think there is some worth in this line breeding (especially when considering the ease of culture for many of these line bred species), but the charm of the speces can be lost.

Concerning kovachii, however, just don't believe that any hybrid I have seen so far approaches the majesty or awesomeness of the species. and I don't think this is going to change. Many other hybrids are amazing in relation to the species: Paph. St. Swithin, Phrag Jason Fischer, all of the modern white Cattleyas, etc, etc. All of these represent (to me) incredible "improvements" in the plant in question. I simply don't think I will ever be able to see this in any kovachii hybrid.

 

[gonewild]

Is anyone else having difficulty accessing the 4th page of his discussion?

page 4 works for me.

Concerning kovachii, however, just don't believe that any hybrid I have seen so far approaches the majesty or awesomeness of the species. and I don't think this is going to change. Many other hybrids are amazing in relation to the species: Paph. St. Swithin, Phrag Jason Fischer, all of the modern white Cattleyas, etc, etc. All of these represent (to me) incredible "improvements" in the plant in question. I simply don't think I will ever be able to see this in any kovachii hybrid.

I agree breeding other phrags to kovachii is not going to create a better looking kovachii. Any phrah you cross it with is so different it will always move the hybrids away from the kovachii form.

I think the better way to look at the breeding is for kovachii to bring some dramatic changes into the existing Phrag hybrids such as size and new colors.
After a few generations we will see some very nice new forms that will be different than the besseae lines. Maybe they won't be better but they will be different and one day very nicely formed.

Look for bigger flowers on smaller plants.
The leaf and growth form of mature kovachii are very pleasing even when not in bloom and maybe this plant form will help to make Phrags "prettier plants".

 

[John M]

It was my understanding that Glen Decker took pollen with him to Peru to put on the kovachii's. I presume that Glen would take pollen only from select plants. Wasn't that the whole reason why he got involved?

From:

Decker, G. Phragmipedium kovahii hybrids. Orchid Digest, vol. 73-4. December 2009

"Since this was a plant strictly under the control and supervision of the Peruvian government, the first round of hybrids were done in Peru. At the time, two Peruvian orchid nurseries were given the permits to collect, grow, hybridize and distribute kovachii and its hybrids. The first was Alfredo Manrique of Centro de Jardineria Manrique and the other Manolo Arias of Peruflora. I had the distinct pleasure of being able to work with Manrique on many of these first hybrids. The biggest problem we faced was simply that we were limited to what was available in Peru to breed with, which was a handful of species and a few besseae hybrids."

Well, that's pretty clear. Thanks Erythrone. I stand corrected!

BTW: I had trouble with page 4 also. I had to reboot my computer to get it to work!

 

[SlipperFan]

No problem on my computer with page 4.

 

[Erythrone]

Neither do I

 

[Shiva]

The way this thread is evolving is fascinating. Lots of good and sound comments.
I like the flower that started it because it has retained the general shape of both parents. All that's needed now is to try to improve the symetry in that particular cross.
If we are to make something of kovachii, we must try to improve its form as it is and not try to homogenise it with all the other phrags.
So much back crossing with besseae has already produced a large number of hybrids that all look the same. We don't need to to this with kovachii.
Understandably, every one got excited when kovachii was discovered and the race was on to see how it would breed with other phrags. Now we're seeing the results with some serious disappointement and I'm not convinced that better parents will produce much better results.
In short, I like kovachii as it is and I think breeders should try to improve the species as it is. Make it easier and faster to grow and easier to flower. That would be a good next step.

 

[Kevin]

I just noticed that Orchid Inn has this one on his site, in case anyone is interested.

I like this one. Are there any updated pics? How does it look now?

 

[NYEric]

The problem w/ Pk is that it doesn't flower easily, therefore easier blooming hybrids were made. I don't think they look the same and I like all the new hybrids! Just my 2 cents.

 

[goldenrose]

The way this thread is evolving is fascinating. Lots of good and sound comments....
So much back crossing with besseae has already produced a large number of hybrids that all look the same. We don't need to to this with kovachii....
In short, I like kovachii as it is and I think breeders should try to improve the species as it is. Make it easier and faster to grow and easier to flower. That would be a good next step.

:clap: I'm with you Shiva!