I 100% agree. I absolutely do not want to unknowingly buy a counterfeit spicerianum, primulinum, or a Sunlight Roth being passed off as a true specie. I MIGHT buy a "Sunlight Roth" for the novelty of it.
Sunlight Sky Roths Roths Roths
- Thread starter SelectOrchids
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 257
Isn't it equally disappointing for someone new to the hobby who wants a prized roth to either buy a flask and wait 10+ years to see if they hit the lotto or buy a very expensive plant [EDIT here, most of these plants are not even available for sale at any price. Try buying P. sanderianum with any reward history]. Both of which are at a very high risk of not being "true pedigrees"? This doesn't even reflect on the character of the vendor that originally sold the plant as we've seen cases where even the vendor thought they received the right pollen from someone else.
Xavier's math is right on these sunlight roths but that is assuming averages with no selection. Most likely the percentage of stonei is much lower if there was pre-selection by a breeder. Mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes can be recovered with one BC using roth as the female (side note, it would be an interesting topic to discuss the mito/chlor influence on plant and flower color, I suspect color would be the main thing). All this to say, these sunlight roths probably have 1% stonei. Assuming 30k protein encoding genes (a rough average), that's about 3000 genes many of which probably are not involved in flowering. My argument is this small of a difference would probably go undetected in flower judging without honest pedigree information.
If the breeder is honest and says, "yes, stonei is in the background ", sure, go ahead and punish him/her by not judging the plant as a species. However for the poor hobby grower who received a plant "like this" under the impression it is a true species, how would you judge the difference? Bigger flower size? Slight bending of the dorsal? Darker stripes and pigments? Are you saying with 100% certainly that this type of variation does NOT exist in the species gene pool? I don't believe that.
Last point regarding the fitness of these plants if they would be returned back to the wild. I think the same question could be applied to any new roth in cultivation (either bred true, or bred with deceit). What we humans desire and what nature wants don't always align.
Xavier's math is right on these sunlight roths but that is assuming averages with no selection. Most likely the percentage of stonei is much lower if there was pre-selection by a breeder. Mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes can be recovered with one BC using roth as the female (side note, it would be an interesting topic to discuss the mito/chlor influence on plant and flower color, I suspect color would be the main thing). All this to say, these sunlight roths probably have 1% stonei. Assuming 30k protein encoding genes (a rough average), that's about 3000 genes many of which probably are not involved in flowering. My argument is this small of a difference would probably go undetected in flower judging without honest pedigree information.
If the breeder is honest and says, "yes, stonei is in the background ", sure, go ahead and punish him/her by not judging the plant as a species. However for the poor hobby grower who received a plant "like this" under the impression it is a true species, how would you judge the difference? Bigger flower size? Slight bending of the dorsal? Darker stripes and pigments? Are you saying with 100% certainly that this type of variation does NOT exist in the species gene pool? I don't believe that.
Last point regarding the fitness of these plants if they would be returned back to the wild. I think the same question could be applied to any new roth in cultivation (either bred true, or bred with deceit). What we humans desire and what nature wants don't always align.
Last edited:
How exactly is it disappointing for someone to want an award quality plant and have to grow them to get one? That's just how Paphs work, you either grow a bunch of seedlings or pay a bunch of money to get a good one. If that's too much commitment then there are always Cattleya and Phalaenopsis where FCC mericlones are a dime a dozen and you can have a collection that looks like everyone else's for a couple hundred bucks. Sunlight Sky Roths aren't going to be any different in that regard, you'll still have to grow out tons of them to find a banger. It's not like this cross is some genetic miracle that makes 100% FCC quality roths lookalikes.
I also fail to see how anyone is being punished by not judging them as if they were pure roths, they would be judged against other plants of the grex just like any other hybrid and I'm sure there will be plenty of awards granted just like every other big flashy roths cross gets.
I also fail to see how anyone is being punished by not judging them as if they were pure roths, they would be judged against other plants of the grex just like any other hybrid and I'm sure there will be plenty of awards granted just like every other big flashy roths cross gets.
It comes down to trust and reputation. Buy from established breeders who value their reputation over short-term profit. At least they try to bring 'ethicaly bred' plants to market.
Depends, I would say that there are a lot of mericlones of FCC plants of Phalaenopsis as an example. Now it does not mean that they are FCC mericlones.... Phalaenopsis stem propagation, even of pot plant varieties, are still highly expensive for that reason. Mericlones are photocopies of the plant, and in most case not perfect copies. Aside from the big horrible mutation, or washed off flowers mutations, pelorism in Phalaenopsis too that can appear, there are many gradients of mutations.
Cloning a limited edition can be done, perfectly well, but it is small numbers, a lot of replates in the lab, and specific media that are not even published. Oddly enough, independent research in each commercial lab ends up, for the top quality ones, in formulations that are similar, but completely different from what has been made public...
As for Sunlight Sky Roths, that depends... First they are easier growers, and they produce many more seedlings, in a faster way ( Lady Isabel x roth is about 30% faster in the lab than straight roth...), second some of their 'standard' characteristics for the whole grex are already superior to the species as a whole... like dorsal width, petals size, etc... Of all the SSR that bloomed, it seems the min dorsal width is 7cm+, some up to 9cm+. They do have a rounder dorsal for many, that comes from stonei.
Only based on that, compare to roths, an average SSR will have a 'much much better' dorsal... When passed as pure roths, they will eliminate most of the true roths.
For Bruno and its progeny x spicerianum, or King Charles/King Charles x charlesworthii, the runts are already vastly superior to the best examples of the species, that's why they pushed the species out. Esquirolei with Hans Strahl, the same. An average Hans Strahl is at least 30-40% bigger/fatter/wider than the best esquirolei you can ever find or breed...
That's interesting because in my (limited, maybe a dozen plants) experience Lady Rothschild has been far slower in my greenhouse. I've been growing a batch for four years and they still look two years from blooming while I've flowered roths acquired at the same time and size. Maybe I'm missing something in my culture but stonei and most of its hybrids grow as slow as sanderianum or anitum for me.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 459
- Reaction score
- 257
It's disappointing because a hobbyists will still devote a lot of time growing these plants only to find out a judge deems them not true species. I received a flask of armeniacums from Tiawan several years ago. The foliage of the plants look very concolor-y, not armeniacum. However they produce a lot of stolons so I know they have some level of armeniacum (or micranthum though I doubt because I kill micranthum quickly) within. 5+ years from now when/if I flower these I could see them being rejected as a species simply due to the foliage no matter how the flowers look.
Obviously some growers deem it as punishment to admit the pedigrees, otherwise we wouldn't have these situations.
What I propose is that we create a judging system that promotes honesty and gives all breeders the incentive to be transparent about the pedigrees.
To do this my idea is that there should be two species 'FCC' classifications. The first would be the "true species " group, where plants can only be judged if their parentage were also judged and there is full traceability back to the original wild parents. Flowers/plants would be rewarded not by "bigger is better" but rather true fitness of the species. Large part of this judging will also take into consideration of a plant's progeny performance. If it breeds true, awards winning plants/hybrids then that is considered for reward. This would provide incentive for growers to be honest about their crosses because they are looking for a lot of rewarded progeny. Under this award class, the Sunlight roths would not be allowed for judging but also, previously awarded plants would be excluded, such as 'Raptor' which has yet to yield superior progeny. However , some grandfathering of older plants would need to take place.
The second class of 'FCC-like' reward would be anything that meets the basic taxonomy requirements for that species. As long as it passes as a roth, which I believe many of these Sunlight roths would, then it is considered for reward for that species. Here, full traceability of parentage is not necessary, only basic flower and form.
I realize this proposal is not perfect and certainly complicated by the many different global award system. I also recognize that some of these requirements are already involved in the current judging process. However, I am trying to find a solution to this complicated problem instead of just bad mouthing the system we currently have.
Obviously some growers deem it as punishment to admit the pedigrees, otherwise we wouldn't have these situations.
What I propose is that we create a judging system that promotes honesty and gives all breeders the incentive to be transparent about the pedigrees.
To do this my idea is that there should be two species 'FCC' classifications. The first would be the "true species " group, where plants can only be judged if their parentage were also judged and there is full traceability back to the original wild parents. Flowers/plants would be rewarded not by "bigger is better" but rather true fitness of the species. Large part of this judging will also take into consideration of a plant's progeny performance. If it breeds true, awards winning plants/hybrids then that is considered for reward. This would provide incentive for growers to be honest about their crosses because they are looking for a lot of rewarded progeny. Under this award class, the Sunlight roths would not be allowed for judging but also, previously awarded plants would be excluded, such as 'Raptor' which has yet to yield superior progeny. However , some grandfathering of older plants would need to take place.
The second class of 'FCC-like' reward would be anything that meets the basic taxonomy requirements for that species. As long as it passes as a roth, which I believe many of these Sunlight roths would, then it is considered for reward for that species. Here, full traceability of parentage is not necessary, only basic flower and form.
I realize this proposal is not perfect and certainly complicated by the many different global award system. I also recognize that some of these requirements are already involved in the current judging process. However, I am trying to find a solution to this complicated problem instead of just bad mouthing the system we currently have.
Real Paph primulinum has been collected in the last few years.
Good point Dave. Unfortunately not all commercial breeders think like you do, and not enough hobbyists are asking the right questions. I know a few unscrupulous breeders in the Phrag. world that will cross anything back onto species and throw a new name on it to make a buck. Always it seems sold as “new and exciting hybrid!!!” Or “wow look at this breeding line!!!” followed by “how many do you want to buy?” Then the hobbyists/growers bloom them out and they are no different from the other 6 “new and exciting hybrids” bought from that source in the last year. I got a call a few months back from one of the reputable, and well known Paph breeders and judges, asking me why a bench full of Phrag hybrids he was looking at could not be distinguished from the species. Well, I told him, that’s because it is not a hybrid at all. But the name sells plants so there you have it.
This is, in my opinion, the result of hobbyists chasing after names and awards in parents rather than dealing with reputable breeders, asking the right questions, and having a great collection. If it’s not pedigree, then a lot of people don’t want it.
So what happens? As is detailed in this thread to some degree, breeders invent, fabricate, and lie to promote themselves and their **** plants and breeding lines and the ethics of some judges only makes the situation worse. Another orchid group is skewering the judges that recently gave an FCC to a Cattleya that nobody seems to think is award quality at all. But hey, who cares? A $40 plant became a $2000 plant in an instant. One of the worst breeders and frauds in the slipper community is a frequent contributor to this forum. Sorry, won’t go there publicly.
Dave is one of the better Paph guys and I will wholeheartedly throw my support behind his breeding. Like it, love it, hate it, at least it’s real.
With wild plants becoming more and more rare, the incentive to lie, manipulate, and cheat is going to grow. Even if wild collected plants can be obtained, it takes years to establish them and get them where you can work them for breeding and not worry about killing your plant with multiple pods on it. Then you have to deal with the bullies on this site wishing you death and prison. Then your breeding in compared to G25 plants on plant steroids. Yes, some breeders use plant steroids. So it’s easier to cheat.
As always,
Best
Last edited:
Remember that the technology now exists with genetic finger printing for all these issues to be put to bed. Paphs have huge genomes. Forget about the DNA in the organelles, the DNA sequences in the chromosomes are each many hundreds of thousands of base pairs long and would be completely identifiable for each species, if the initial sequencing work was carried out. The cost of this technology is dropping every year.
It’s already being used in high value species like agricultural crop plants. At some point someone is going to start on orchids.
It’s already being used in high value species like agricultural crop plants. At some point someone is going to start on orchids.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 253
I have never met someone 'new to the hobby' who was willing to invest 10 years and hundreds of dollars in a roth flask. High end roths can be had for the right price, after all 'anything is for sale' if you visit my nursery. However, an average roth from any recent cross with good parents (and true name tags) will likely please 99% of the orchid growing public. Only the true connoisseurs and high end collectors demand the best of the best.
I have often wondered if pollinators would recognize our selectively bred species with wider petals and sepals and deeper colors. The fact is, what insects see is totally different from what we see. The colors are perceived in a completely different way, and there can be fragrances that we are not physiologically wired to detect. Somehow I doubt that we could accidentally breed out the characteristics that allow reproduction and evolved over millennia in a few generations. It would make an interesting study.
Dave
No no... That's a problem in Indonesia actually as of now, there has been reintroduced plants in the wild of a few hybrids, and they harvest them from time to time....
Bintangdelapan had a partnership with Floricultura in the 90s to supply Pinnochio and others hybrids in Indonesia. There were tens of thousands of plants shipped there.
Paph agusii, lunatum, 'superbiens' etc... have been selfed in Europe. When the seedlings bloom, we clearly see urbanianum or callosum coming back. They are like Jogjae, which can be 'collected' still...
A batch of 'wild collected' superbiens did bloom in Da Lat, a lot had callosum like dorsals, and they came straight out of Indonesia. 90% are 'superbiens' indeed, but the 5-10% remaining clearly show callosum in the dorsals... Of course the suppliers swear that they are wild ones, and there are even 'in-situ' pictures, which are the places the plants were introduced for certain...
If you read some of the old Kolopaking price lists from the 90s he said he introduced hybrids in the wild to make new species... And indeed, a few of the new 'discoveries' in Indonesia are clearly hybrids.
As for rothschildianum, well there are a lot of variations. Here is a picture of a rothschildianum called 'Vinicolor' in the 90s. The plant was collected by the Tenom Agriculture Park, and is still alive in 2 places...
It is easy to see that it is 'very close' to the latest true line bred roths around, that some deem 'artificial'...
As for the DNA, that's funny because I am in discussion to see how it could be managed in Phalaenopsis species as well... Most of the Phal species in the trade are hybrids, including all the 'speciosa' and other color forms. It is even possible to buy from the local nurseries in Malaysia and Indonesia Samera Fx as bellina... etc... So for them the only way is to see where original ( herbarium, etc...) DNA can be sourced. Plants were bought and planted in the wild of several species as well, that is documented if needed, so it makes the matter even more complicated.
It is easy to see that it is 'very close' to the latest true line bred roths around, that some deem 'artificial'...
As for the DNA, that's funny because I am in discussion to see how it could be managed in Phalaenopsis species as well... Most of the Phal species in the trade are hybrids, including all the 'speciosa' and other color forms. It is even possible to buy from the local nurseries in Malaysia and Indonesia Samera Fx as bellina... etc... So for them the only way is to see where original ( herbarium, etc...) DNA can be sourced. Plants were bought and planted in the wild of several species as well, that is documented if needed, so it makes the matter even more complicated.
I have information, that I trust, that true primulinum has been found and collected recently. Let’s agree to disagree.
If that's the ones supplied for the last 2 years or so, definitely not primulinum. Problem is that it is hard to trust Indonesian suppliers in general... especially after the flood of hybrids they sold as new species over the recent years.
Absolutely abysmally I correct assertion. You are talking about pollution of a precious and unique gene pool. Shame on all.
I’d buy one if I had a fireplace in which to incinerate it.
mmmh depends...
To make hybrids, they could be really amazing, but not to pollute the species. The fake Charlesworthii/KingCharles have been used by accident x rungsuriyanum, and the real charlesworthii x rungsuriyanum has been done as well at the same time, apparently in Taiwan for the former and Thailand for the later. The former are far, far superior.
A rothschildianum like flower of 38cm with a dorsal of 8-9cm might be amazing to produce 'remakes' of rothschildianum hybrids such as Delrosi, St Swithin, etc...
As I said, it is true primulinum and I trust the source of my information. The plants are the real thing, and recently encountered.
