How does the procedure for crossing them compare with that for phals? I
[snip]
Same old process. The pollinia are pretty obvious, the stigma is on
the back side of the staminode (that shield shaped thingie in the
middle), and usually faces down and back into the pouch. Remove
pollinium from one parent, smash onto the stigma of the other parent.
Sometimes you do have to mutilate the flower to do it, you can crack off
the pouch with little affect on most flowers. It will still be viable
for hybridization, just kind of weird looking. I've usually managed to
do most paphs without having to damage them. Seed production varies,
some grexes yield zero. Some yield a dozen viable seed. Some tens of
thousands... Seed to blooming depends on the breeding. Mottled leaf
'maudiae' types might be as little as 2.5 years. Big rothschildanum or
sanderianum hybrids, 10+ years sometimes.

Thanks.

Is there a book that does for paphs what Christensen has done for phals?


With the caveat that even Christensen isn't entirely correct, yes.

Good. I have a few problems with what he's done myself, but that gets into
questions of theoretical biology and how taxonomy ought to be done. His
book remains useful though.

There is still subtantial debate as to some of his taxonomy, just
publishing a monograph doesn't make it 'right'. Two paph books that I
like are Guido Braem's monograph (which you might not be able to find),
and Phillip Cribb's book. They differ in several ways, but this is to
be expected as I'm pretty sure they don't get along. But there are
plenty of paph books.

Thanks. I'll take a look for Cribb's book, as a starting point.

Is there such a thing as a taxonomist who can get along with another
taxonomist, particularly one who works on the same taxa? ;-)

The problem of having lots of paph books, or books on any given topic for
that matter, is that some are just a waste of paper while others are gems.
Asking for recommendations is a way of making an attempt to avoid the
relatively useless and improve the chances of getting a gem. In the realm
of software engineering and C++ programming, it is certain that I have less
than 1% of the books on the subject, but I have all of the important, useful
ones, and none of the relatively useless ones.

Now, what would you say is the ideal size of pot for
a given paph? At present, the largest leaves on the larger plant are
about
10 cm long, and those on the smaller one are half that.


Considering that you should repot at least once a year, the smallest
that will comfortably fit the roots. Regardless of how big the top is.
If the pot is too small to keep from tipping over, put the small pot
into a larger clay pot.

OK. Thanks.

So, then, in a sense, paphs would be better for beginners than phals or
dends, even though the ones I have seen tend to be much more expensive
than
either, because the beginner is less likely to kill them with the
kindness
of watering them at every opportunity. I wonder why they aren't more
common
and affordable?


Oh, they are pretty common, and often cheap. You just haven't
noticed them yet. Next time you go to a show, keep your eyes open.
Seedlings are cheap, divisions get expensive. Paphs aren't 'cloneable'
like phals, or at least not reliably, so you have to propagate a plant
by true division. Harder to get a lot of them that way.

Do you have any ideas or info on why paphs aren't clonable? I'll keep my
eyes open for interesting specimens.

I take it that my paph is of the 'maudiae' type, since you described that
type as having a mottled leaf. I will look especially for 'maudiae' type
paphs, similar to the one I already have, but with different colours. It
will be interesting to compare paph breeding and the transmission of colour
with phal breeding.

Cheers,

Ted