Phragmipedium besseae var dalessandroi

[ORG]

You can read also the article of Kyle Lucyk from Canada, who has worked a long time with the living plants of both species.

 

[FrankRC]

Hi Alex,
I hesitate to weigh in here, but I think you have this backwards. I refer you to the Sept. 2020 article in Orchids (the AOS magazine) by Olaf Gruss (who, along with Dodson, published the original article describing Phragmipedium dalessandroi as a separate species, in Orchidee (Hamburg) in 1996).
It is dalessandroi that has the compact plant with clumping growth habit, and is nonstoloniferous - not besseae, which sometimes has that climbing growth habit.
Frank C. has MUCH more real-world experience than me; he’s a wonderful speaker; I respect his opinion greatly. However, for most of us, there is a practicality in accepting that two species are now recognized by AOS and Kew.
Frank is correct in the sense that there is considerable variability in besseae, as to petal shape, stolon shape, color, etc. Sometimes besseae is stoloniferous, sometimes nonstoloniferous.
The most definitive distinction is one that is currently impractical for me, as a hobbyist, i.e., that the chromosome count for besseae is reported to be 2n=24, whereas dalessandroi is 2n=28.
Hope this helps.
Best, Kate

I go a vacation and look at all that I missed!

Kate, thank you very much for the kind words! Will you be at the WOC in Taiwan next year? I am giving two (2) lectures there and presenting two (2) posters, all on the genus Phragmipedium. I do hope to meet many of you there.

Kew is showing Phragmipedium dalessandroi as a variety of besseae. There has been non-stop noise around the name dalessandroi since prior to the formal description. I do a detailed, deep dive into the name dalessandroi in my 2020 checklist of species in the Orchid Digest. I am very happy to let you all know that I have received the OK from the Orchid Digest to post my articles on Academia.edu. A difference in chromosome number is consistent across the genus. All species have some variability in the number of chromosomes as do other genera of flowering plants. This is by no means dispositive.

The checklist can be found here: Checklist Cervera Orchid Digest 84-

All of my articles, including the two (2) schlimii articles, can be found here: Frank Cervera - Academia.edu

In addition to the checklist, I suggest everyone read the article on what makes a species in the genus Phragmipedium. Phragmipedium is a unique genus in many ways, and this article may help understand what we are dealing with:

Phragmipedium Taxonomy Cervera Orchid Digest 84-

 

[FrankRC]

I would love to understand this comment: "I know of only one effort to map the genome of a slipper, at the State University of New York, and that effort required 25 pounds of material (it is/was mexipedium). To do Phrags correctly would require several hundred pounds..."

My god, what does "25 pounds" of Mexipedium look like???? Where would one come by so much Mexipedium? I'm truly asking; I have never heard of "pounds" of any organism being required to run a DNA sequence. Mapping a genome is different but I do not think it's actually necessary in order to determine such genetic distinctions as delineate species.

In mycology, we are running DNA sequences for $1 or less per sequence, yielding high-quality data. DNA science is not my bag but I collect specimens and assist with their preparation regularly. I am trying to understand why orchid sequences would be so very different in terms of process.

Back when I was writing the articles in my prior post, in the 2018-2020 timeframe, I was in contact with several plant genetics labs that had done, or I was given information had in flight, genetic analysis of Phramipediums. I was told that the a mapping of the genome for Mexipedium (we all agree this is not a Phragmipedium at this point?) was ongoing at a major University in New York. I contacted the person in charge. We had a long discussion about the topic. I was told that mapping the genome is a long and exhaustive process and is very different than counting the number of chromosomes. I saw pictures of the plants and they were enormous and yes, I was told that ~25 pounds of material were, are being used. Again, to be clear, we are not talking about counting the number of chromosomes but mapping the entire genome.

As I have not seen the final publication, only a draft, I will wait for the final product before opining further. Honestly I am not sure where this effort is at the moment, nor can I speak for why so much source material is/was necessary.

This is what we are looking for, correct? Because the testing on the chromosome count that has been done to date demonstrates that the number of chromosomes is variable, and not static. There is research done on other genera of flowering plants, of which Phragmipedium are a part, that also concludes that different chromosomes numbers is by no means unusual or out of the ordinary. I reference one of these studies in the checklist.

Best,

 

[FrankRC]

I am sorry, but the AOS is most definitely NOT a taxonomic aurthority. In one genus alone, Trichopilia, between 25%-30% of the awarded plants are clearly mislabeled. Same goes for Kew - wrong as much as right.

Phragmipedium is a huge problem for Kew, especially on the hybrid side. We need to unpeel the onion ourselves and understand what we have and what we are buying. Kew registered "Zapatilla de la Virgin", which is identical to "Stairway to Heaven". After the name change from wallisii to warszewiczianum the former was registered as a new hybrid and sold in large quantities to an unsuspecting orchid public notwithstanding they are the same thing. I think Kew is starting to look at Phrag. hybrid registrations, but that is just talk at this point.

Kew is better than the AOS, and under no circumstances would I assume the AOS is a taxonomic authority on any subject. The award database is a mess of mislabelled plants, hybrids awarded as species, and misidentified plants. There are a few really bad examples in the genus Phragmipedium if anyone is interested in that kind of thing. At least once a year I get asked by a judge to ID a Phrag and you would be surprised at how wrong so many tags are.

The genus Phragmipedium is plagued by an excessive number of synonyms from ANYONES perspective. Why is that? Why is it that even if we take the most liberal approach to species definition and identification, we still have fifty percent (50%) of the names published in the genus reduced to synonyms? That's far from the case in Paphiopedilum and the other two genera of slippers. Look at the number of synonyms in my checklist, article on the Caudatum group, and schlimii. Even if you think some of those names are species we are still left with an excessive number of synonyms. What went wrong?

Best,

 

[FrankRC]

"aren't always": you will find between 25% - 50% of their plants are mislabeled these days depending on what groups you are considering. Often, even the genus is wrong. More often, hybrids sold as species, species mislabeled, etc. They won't do anything about it. They are too busy expanding to worry about correct labels or customer serice. They simply don't care even when confronted with it and do nothing about it.

Ecuagenera are famous for mislabelling plants. I have a few expensive divisions here of some of their plants and surprise, they are hybrids or mislabelled. They make good on the money I paid, however they are notorious for mislabelled and incorrect plants. Based on my experience, 50% is about right.

Best,

 

[FrankRC]

You can read also the article of Kyle Lucyk from Canada, who has worked a long time with the living plants of both species.

Olaf, I was at Ecuagerna when Kyle did this analysis. He used plants at the Ecuagenera nursery that were labelled as dalessandroi. The analysis you refer to is based on plant tags in the pots at Ecuagenera. Ecuagenera has mislabelled and sold so many different things over the years as dalessandroi it is impossible to verify where the plants used for that analysis actually came from. Kyles analysis is also questionable as he used plants that were dry and stressed and the floral parts are thus unreliable.

Best,

 

[Heather]

You can read also the article of Kyle Lucyk from Canada, who has worked a long time with the living plants of both species.

Thanks Olaf, I recently got a copy of this from Kyle but it was in German so I appreciate an English copy!

 

[Heather]

I go a vacation and look at all that I missed!

Kate, thank you very much for the kind words! Will you be at the WOC in Taiwan next year? I am giving two (2) lectures there and presenting two (2) posters, all on the genus Phragmipedium. I do hope to meet many of you there.

Kew is showing Phragmipedium dalessandroi as a variety of besseae. There has been non-stop noise around the name dalessandroi since prior to the formal description. I do a detailed, deep dive into the name dalessandroi in my 2020 checklist of species in the Orchid Digest. I am very happy to let you all know that I have received the OK from the Orchid Digest to post my articles on Academia.edu. A difference in chromosome number is consistent across the genus. All species have some variability in the number of chromosomes as do other genera of flowering plants. This is by no means dispositive.

The checklist can be found here: Checklist Cervera Orchid Digest 84-

All of my articles, including the two (2) schlimii articles, can be found here: Frank Cervera - Academia.edu

In addition to the checklist, I suggest everyone read the article on what makes a species in the genus Phragmipedium. Phragmipedium is a unique genus in many ways, and this article may help understand what we are dealing with:

Phragmipedium Taxonomy Cervera Orchid Digest 84-

Thank you for the links, Frank!

 

[FrankRC]

Kew says otherwise.

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:303734-2

Not quite...

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:303734-2

 

[terryros]

I agree that we have some messes in Phragmipedium. I think another prominent example would be:

Kew (citing FrankRC and Govaets) has Phrag. sargentianum as a synonym of lindleyanum - not even a var.

besseae x sargentianum was registered as Memoria **** Clements in Feb 1992 while
besseae x lindleyanum was registered as Andean Fire in Oct 1992

MDC would have precedence, so Andean Fire would disappear

MDC x besseae = Jason Fischer (July 1996) would remain

Andean Fire x bessea = Inca Fire (Feb 1997) would disappear

 

[FrankRC]

I agree that we have some messes in Phragmipedium. I think another prominent example would be:

Kew (citing FrankRC and Govaets) has Phrag. sargentianum as a synonym of lindleyanum - not even a var.

besseae x sargentianum was registered as Memoria **** Clements in Feb 1992 while
besseae x lindleyanum was registered as Andean Fire in Oct 1992

MDC would have precedence, so Andean Fire would disappear

MDC x besseae = Jason Fischer (July 1996) would remain

Andean Fire x bessea = Inca Fire (Feb 1997) would disappear

Kew told me they are looking at Phrag hybrids but I am yet to see any movement there. They know there is a problem.

 

[alex.sorensen51]

I love the in- depth discussion in regards Bessae and Dessandroi. That note from K.Lucek goes into a lot of experiential discovery, that even a genetic examination might not expand upon.

 

[rauhaariger]

Dalessandroi was just the price here. I think it's really outrageous what Ecugenera is doing here, aren't they worried about their reputation at all? The plant delivered does not bear a single characteristic of dalessandroi, regardless of whether it is a species or a variety

 

[NYEric]

Dalessandroi was just the price here. I think it's really outrageous what Ecugenera is doing here, aren't they worried about their reputation at all? The plant delivered does not bear a single characteristic of dalessandroi, regardless of whether it is a species or a variety


View attachment 44925

I told you that before, you defended the tag. Live and learn, I hope.

 

[SelectOrchids]

I remember the dalessandroi at the Eric Young and in the 90s... What was sold under that name had kind of dropping petals, but the most shocking part was that the flower spikes were like a Christmas Tree, huge, with side branches. We rarely see those plants today, if ever, and it was not a culture issue.

 

[Heather]

Dalessandroi was just the price here. I think it's really outrageous what Ecugenera is doing here, aren't they worried about their reputation at all? The plant delivered does not bear a single characteristic of dalessandroi, regardless of whether it is a species or a variety


View attachment 44925

If you had read this entire thread, you’d have known this was a gamble…in fact, I posted my recent one from them which should have told you everything you needed to know…you buy from Ecua, that’s how it is… (Personally I’m just happy to be able to find some Phrags to try to grow again…)

 

[rauhaariger]

If you had read this entire thread, you’d have known this was a gamble…in fact, I posted my recent one from them which should have told you everything you needed to know…you buy from Ecua, that’s how it is… (Personally I’m just happy to be able to find some Phrags to try to grow again…)

If you think that's okay then that's your business. I will continue to insist on receiving what I ordered and, above all, what I paid for. No matter what I have read here or not. If I want to be lucky, I play the lottery.

 

[Heather]

If you think that's okay then that's your business. I will continue to insist on receiving what I ordered and, above all, what I paid for. No matter what I have read here or not. If I want to be lucky, I play the lottery.

I think you missed my point… At any rate, do report back what their response is to your complaint. I’m sure we are all curious…

 

[FrankRC]

Dalessandroi was just the price here. I think it's really outrageous what Ecugenera is doing here, aren't they worried about their reputation at all? The plant delivered does not bear a single characteristic of dalessandroi, regardless of whether it is a species or a variety


View attachment 44925

I can tell you from personal experience, and from having spent a considerable amount of time at the Ecuagenera nursery over the years, that Ecuagenera has sold many different things as D’alessandroi over the years, none of them true to the name.

Part of the problem, not all, is that the description described so many plants from all over Ecuador.

I know Ecuagenera does care about their reputation. However at the greenhouse level there is an alarming lack of orchid knowledge and experience in the staff.

Best,

 

[FrankRC]

I remember the dalessandroi at the Eric Young and in the 90s... What was sold under that name had kind of dropping petals, but the most shocking part was that the flower spikes were like a Christmas Tree, huge, with side branches. We rarely see those plants today, if ever, and it was not a culture issue.

You can still find these plants. They are rare, but can be found.

I saw one with 2 spikes coming out of the same growth once and had 8 flowers open simultaneously.

Best,