Although I have been trying to grow orchis for close to a year, I just got
my first Paph. Sunday. I find the label hard to read, but it looks like
Paph. delenatii x moquetianum. It is the 'moquetianum' part of the name
that is particularly hard to read. If it would help to know what the flower
looks like, it is a bit larger than the flowers on my Phal. amabilis, with
what I suppose is the normal paph shape. I find the anatomy a bit odd in
that I am not sure which are the petals and which are the sepals; and I am
not sure why I only see four rather than six petals and sepals (combined
total). But be that as it may, they are all about the same length and
width, and al but the slipper being wavey rather than flat. The base colour
is white, but there is enough pink to purple veining (well, the pattern I
see looks like the veins on other plants I have seen) to make the flower to
look pink from a distance, with the slipper being significantly lighter than
the rest, and whatever that structure is covering the column (well, here too
the description assumes there is a column in a position similar to the
location of the column in phals) is varying from burgundy at the tip to very
light pink at its base, with no apparent pattern. I noticed on the way home
from the SOOS meeting that the edges and back of the flower and the
inflorescence has a lot of very short fine hair, like peach fuzz.

The leaves are mottled light and dark green, with a dark burgundy on the
underside close to the centre of the plant, and the shape there is similar
to that in phals, except that it looks flatter while most of my phals there
look more rounded. And the leaves are similar in shape to those of the
phals apart from being more pointed.

When I showed this acquisition to one of the other vendors he immediately
recognised it, so I'd assume this cross is quite common, and he thought it
may have been a compot since there are two growing points, but he thought
they'e too far apart to be from the same plant. I think, though, that if it
was a compot, the smaller one is likely to be an inferios weakling because
it is much smaller than the one in bloom, although they both have five
leaves,with the one in bloom growing another leaf. Therefore, I think I'd
be happier if the smaler growth is just a new growth produced by the larger
one. If it was a compot, wouldn't they both be the same age and thus the
same size? But at that, he said the only way to know for certain is to
repot it, which I don't want to do until the last flower has faded.

Both he and the vendour I bought it from said I should treat it like I treat
my phals, and that it probably wouldn't like the conditions my catts like.
Both said it is easy to grow. But this is not enough guidance. With only a
couple exceptions, my catts couldn't be happier, putting up lots of new
pseudobulbs and growing like crazy. But my phals seem to be stagnating.
Only a seedling, that I bought as a first bloom seedling early this year, is
putting up a new leaf. And I have a total of three phal keikis on two
plants, the largest of which is as big as the first bloom seedling, but I am
beginning to be concerned since none of the keikis have put out roots, in
marked contrast to the dend keikis that I've been blessed with. So, I am
not sure that I have my phal culture quite right yet. I haven't lost any
lately, but I haven't seen new growth yet either, and apart from a couple
very recent acquisitions all have been repotted and had apparently healthy
roots.

I have some questions about this paph. I see two flowers, with a bud
developing for a third. should I assume, then, that it is a sequential
bloomer? If so, about how many is it likely to produce. When it is clearly
done blooming, should the inflorescence be removed or will it rebloom on the
old inflorescence when it is ready to bloom again? Will it want to be
wetter or dryer than the phals, and will it like the same potting material?
Is it a terrestrial, like the related cypripediums, or an epiphyte like most
phals? Or something else?

Cheers,

Ted

Ted Byers wrote:

Although I have been trying to grow orchis for close to a year, I just got
my first Paph. Sunday. I find the label hard to read, but it looks like
Paph. delenatii x moquetianum. It is the 'moquetianum' part of the name
that is particularly hard to read.

Paphiopedilum moquettianum. Some people know that as glaucophyllum v.
moquettianum, in which case your hybrid is Paph. Delophyllum. Some
people call it other things (chamberlainianum v. moquettianum, etc).
Personally I don't see much point in having them as separate species,
since if I can't reliably tell the difference it probably isn't that
important, but I'm not a taxonomist. Nice hybrid, regardless.

I find the anatomy a bit odd in
that I am not sure which are the petals and which are the sepals; and I am
not sure why I only see four rather than six petals and sepals (combined
total).

Paphs are a bit odd. And perhaps not quite orchids, but that is
another story. In a 'normal' orchid, you would see three sepals, two
petals, and a modified third petal (the lip, or labellum). In paphs,
the labellum is the pouch, or the slipper (Paphiopedilum = 'slipper of
Aphrodite'). Two of the sepals are fused into a structure called the
synsepal, it is located right behind the pouch and points down. The
dorsal sepal is the one that points up. The petals are what is left..
in this case they are pointing horizontally from the center.

When I showed this acquisition to one of the other vendors he immediately
recognised it, so I'd assume this cross is quite common, and he thought it
may have been a compot since there are two growing points, but he thought
they'e too far apart to be from the same plant. I think, though, that if it
was a compot, the smaller one is likely to be an inferios weakling because
it is much smaller than the one in bloom, although they both have five
leaves,with the one in bloom growing another leaf. Therefore, I think I'd
be happier if the smaler growth is just a new growth produced by the larger
one. If it was a compot, wouldn't they both be the same age and thus the
same size? But at that, he said the only way to know for certain is to
repot it, which I don't want to do until the last flower has faded.


Probably not. Some paphs have long stolons (rhizomes, whatever).
But this wouldn't be one of them. I'd say you have two plants. The
runt may or may not be inferior. Sometimes the best flowers are on the
runts. It will either die, or eventually grow to be indistinguishable
from any other adult plant. Not all plants out of the same compot grow
equally fast, it is just the way things are.

Both he and the vendour I bought it from said I should treat it like I treat
my phals, and that it probably wouldn't like the conditions my catts like.
Both said it is easy to grow. But this is not enough guidance. With only a


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that, less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

I have some questions about this paph. I see two flowers, with a bud
developing for a third. should I assume, then, that it is a sequential
bloomer? If so, about how many is it likely to produce. When it is clearly
done blooming, should the inflorescence be removed or will it rebloom on the
old inflorescence when it is ready to bloom again? Will it want to be
wetter or dryer than the phals, and will it like the same potting material?
Is it a terrestrial, like the related cypripediums, or an epiphyte like most
phals? Or something else?


Yep. Sequential bloomer. Don't cut the inflorescence until it
turns brown. Depends a lot on how big the plant is as to how many
flowers you will get. I'd say three is a good start and any more than
that is bonus. It will not rebloom on the spent inflorescence. You
need to get another fan of leaves to maturity (they spread out like
cattleyas, not up like phals) before it will bloom again. The bigger
the plant, the faster it will grow. Don't go out of your way to divide
it. Do go out of your way to repot it. At least once a year. Paphs
respond well to repotting (I wish I had time to do it more often).
Terrestrial is not quite what a paph is, depending on your definition.
In this case, they do typically grow on the ground, but not in the
actual dirt, rather the stuff that accumulates on top of the dirt.
Garden soil would kill your plant quickly. Many people use a fine bark
mix with other stuff (chopped sphagnum, perlite, charcoal, etc) mixed
in. You can almost always buy a pretty good mix, next time you go to a
show or sale keep your eyes open.

Rob (Paph-rat)

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Hi Rob

Thanks.
"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

Although I have been trying to grow orchis for close to a year, I just
got
my first Paph. Sunday. I find the label hard to read, but it looks like
Paph. delenatii x moquetianum. It is the 'moquetianum' part of the name
that is particularly hard to read.

Paphiopedilum moquettianum. Some people know that as glaucophyllum v.
moquettianum, in which case your hybrid is Paph. Delophyllum. Some
people call it other things (chamberlainianum v. moquettianum, etc).
Personally I don't see much point in having them as separate species,
since if I can't reliably tell the difference it probably isn't that
important, but I'm not a taxonomist. Nice hybrid, regardless.

Thanks. And I thought the subspecific taxonomy of Phalaenopsis violacea was
mess up. :-)

My alergy to taxonomists has just been excerbated significantly. I may even
break out in hives the next time I meet one. ;-) (See my reply to Al
regarding some insanity in icthyological taxonomy).

I find the anatomy a bit odd in
that I am not sure which are the petals and which are the sepals; and I
am
not sure why I only see four rather than six petals and sepals (combined
total).

Paphs are a bit odd. And perhaps not quite orchids, but that is
another story. In a 'normal' orchid, you would see three sepals, two
petals, and a modified third petal (the lip, or labellum). In paphs,
the labellum is the pouch, or the slipper (Paphiopedilum = 'slipper of
Aphrodite'). Two of the sepals are fused into a structure called the
synsepal, it is located right behind the pouch and points down. The
dorsal sepal is the one that points up. The petals are what is left..
in this case they are pointing horizontally from the center.

Thanks. Now that you have explained it, I understand what I am seeing.

How does the procedure for crossing them compare with that for phals? I
have tried to cross a phal, and am still waiting for the pod to mature. But
it isn't obvious to me how to do it with a paph without mutilating the
flowers. And how do paphs compare with phals WRT seed production, how long
it takes to pods to mature, how long it takes to reach blooming size, &c.?

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

Probably not. Some paphs have long stolons (rhizomes, whatever).
But this wouldn't be one of them. I'd say you have two plants. The
runt may or may not be inferior. Sometimes the best flowers are on the
runts. It will either die, or eventually grow to be indistinguishable
from any other adult plant. Not all plants out of the same compot grow
equally fast, it is just the way things are.

Ah, OK. So when I repot, when the flowers have faded, I can expect to have
to put the runt into a pot of its own. Presumably it has a better chance of
doing well if it is alone than would be the case if it has to compete with a
faster growing plant. 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.

Both he and the vendour I bought it from said I should treat it like I
treat
my phals, and that it probably wouldn't like the conditions my catts
like.
Both said it is easy to grow. But this is not enough guidance. With
only a


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that, less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

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?

I have some questions about this paph. I see two flowers, with a bud
developing for a third. should I assume, then, that it is a sequential
[snip]

Yep. Sequential bloomer. Don't cut the inflorescence until it
turns brown. Depends a lot on how big the plant is as to how many
flowers you will get. I'd say three is a good start and any more than
[snip]
Thanks again

Ted.

It's the second time this week I'm seeing the comment that Paphs are not
quite orchids (the other was in the Paph article in the latest Orchids I
think) - could you elaborate?

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

Although I have been trying to grow orchis for close to a year, I just
got
my first Paph. Sunday. I find the label hard to read, but it looks like
Paph. delenatii x moquetianum. It is the 'moquetianum' part of the name
that is particularly hard to read.

Paphiopedilum moquettianum. Some people know that as glaucophyllum v.
moquettianum, in which case your hybrid is Paph. Delophyllum. Some
people call it other things (chamberlainianum v. moquettianum, etc).
Personally I don't see much point in having them as separate species,
since if I can't reliably tell the difference it probably isn't that
important, but I'm not a taxonomist. Nice hybrid, regardless.

I find the anatomy a bit odd in
that I am not sure which are the petals and which are the sepals; and I
am
not sure why I only see four rather than six petals and sepals (combined
total).

Paphs are a bit odd. And perhaps not quite orchids, but that is
another story. In a 'normal' orchid, you would see three sepals, two
petals, and a modified third petal (the lip, or labellum). In paphs,
the labellum is the pouch, or the slipper (Paphiopedilum = 'slipper of
Aphrodite'). Two of the sepals are fused into a structure called the
synsepal, it is located right behind the pouch and points down. The
dorsal sepal is the one that points up. The petals are what is left..
in this case they are pointing horizontally from the center.

When I showed this acquisition to one of the other vendors he immediately
recognised it, so I'd assume this cross is quite common, and he thought
it
may have been a compot since there are two growing points, but he thought
they'e too far apart to be from the same plant. I think, though, that if
it
was a compot, the smaller one is likely to be an inferios weakling
because
it is much smaller than the one in bloom, although they both have five
leaves,with the one in bloom growing another leaf. Therefore, I think
I'd
be happier if the smaler growth is just a new growth produced by the
larger
one. If it was a compot, wouldn't they both be the same age and thus the
same size? But at that, he said the only way to know for certain is to
repot it, which I don't want to do until the last flower has faded.


Probably not. Some paphs have long stolons (rhizomes, whatever).
But this wouldn't be one of them. I'd say you have two plants. The
runt may or may not be inferior. Sometimes the best flowers are on the
runts. It will either die, or eventually grow to be indistinguishable
from any other adult plant. Not all plants out of the same compot grow
equally fast, it is just the way things are.

Both he and the vendour I bought it from said I should treat it like I
treat
my phals, and that it probably wouldn't like the conditions my catts
like.
Both said it is easy to grow. But this is not enough guidance. With
only a


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that, less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

I have some questions about this paph. I see two flowers, with a bud
developing for a third. should I assume, then, that it is a sequential
bloomer? If so, about how many is it likely to produce. When it is
clearly
done blooming, should the inflorescence be removed or will it rebloom on
the
old inflorescence when it is ready to bloom again? Will it want to be
wetter or dryer than the phals, and will it like the same potting
material?
Is it a terrestrial, like the related cypripediums, or an epiphyte like
most
phals? Or something else?


Yep. Sequential bloomer. Don't cut the inflorescence until it
turns brown. Depends a lot on how big the plant is as to how many
flowers you will get. I'd say three is a good start and any more than
that is bonus. It will not rebloom on the spent inflorescence. You
need to get another fan of leaves to maturity (they spread out like
cattleyas, not up like phals) before it will bloom again. The bigger
the plant, the faster it will grow. Don't go out of your way to divide
it. Do go out of your way to repot it. At least once a year. Paphs
respond well to repotting (I wish I had time to do it more often).
Terrestrial is not quite what a paph is, depending on your definition.
In this case, they do typically grow on the ground, but not in the
actual dirt, rather the stuff that accumulates on top of the dirt.
Garden soil would kill your plant quickly. Many people use a fine bark
mix with other stuff (chopped sphagnum, perlite, charcoal, etc) mixed
in. You can almost always buy a pretty good mix, next time you go to a
show or sale keep your eyes open.

Rob (Paph-rat)

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .
Hi Rob

Thanks.
"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

Although I have been trying to grow orchis for close to a year, I just
got
my first Paph. Sunday. I find the label hard to read, but it looks
like
Paph. delenatii x moquetianum. It is the 'moquetianum' part of the
name
that is particularly hard to read.

Paphiopedilum moquettianum. Some people know that as glaucophyllum v.
moquettianum, in which case your hybrid is Paph. Delophyllum. Some
people call it other things (chamberlainianum v. moquettianum, etc).
Personally I don't see much point in having them as separate species,
since if I can't reliably tell the difference it probably isn't that
important, but I'm not a taxonomist. Nice hybrid, regardless.

Thanks. And I thought the subspecific taxonomy of Phalaenopsis violacea
was
mess up. :-)

My alergy to taxonomists has just been excerbated significantly. I may
even
break out in hives the next time I meet one. ;-) (See my reply to Al
regarding some insanity in icthyological taxonomy).

I find the anatomy a bit odd in
that I am not sure which are the petals and which are the sepals; and I
am
not sure why I only see four rather than six petals and sepals
(combined
total).

Paphs are a bit odd. And perhaps not quite orchids, but that is
another story. In a 'normal' orchid, you would see three sepals, two
petals, and a modified third petal (the lip, or labellum). In paphs,
the labellum is the pouch, or the slipper (Paphiopedilum = 'slipper of
Aphrodite'). Two of the sepals are fused into a structure called the
synsepal, it is located right behind the pouch and points down. The
dorsal sepal is the one that points up. The petals are what is left..
in this case they are pointing horizontally from the center.

Thanks. Now that you have explained it, I understand what I am seeing.

How does the procedure for crossing them compare with that for phals? I
have tried to cross a phal, and am still waiting for the pod to mature.
But
it isn't obvious to me how to do it with a paph without mutilating the
flowers. And how do paphs compare with phals WRT seed production, how
long
it takes to pods to mature, how long it takes to reach blooming size, &c.?

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

Probably not. Some paphs have long stolons (rhizomes, whatever).
But this wouldn't be one of them. I'd say you have two plants. The
runt may or may not be inferior. Sometimes the best flowers are on the
runts. It will either die, or eventually grow to be indistinguishable
from any other adult plant. Not all plants out of the same compot grow
equally fast, it is just the way things are.

Ah, OK. So when I repot, when the flowers have faded, I can expect to
have
to put the runt into a pot of its own. Presumably it has a better chance
of
doing well if it is alone than would be the case if it has to compete with
a
faster growing plant. 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.

When you take it out of the pot (you can even repot it in spike although I
wouldn't unless I had to), look at the roots and choose a pot that they will
fit comfortably in.


Both he and the vendour I bought it from said I should treat it like I
treat
my phals, and that it probably wouldn't like the conditions my catts
like.
Both said it is easy to grow. But this is not enough guidance. With
only a


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that, less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

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?

They are more expensive because they have yet to be cloned so one can only
get copies of a particular plant by dividing it making awarded ones
expensive. And the seedlings tend to grow slower than other orchids
although some paphs grow quickly and some are notoriously slow to mature.
Also, some don't make a lot of seed...

Also, you can overwater Paphs and some like to be pretty dry (concolor and
the other brachys) although underwatering them is more common, especially
under lights.


I have some questions about this paph. I see two flowers, with a bud
developing for a third. should I assume, then, that it is a sequential
[snip]

Yep. Sequential bloomer. Don't cut the inflorescence until it
turns brown. Depends a lot on how big the plant is as to how many
flowers you will get. I'd say three is a good start and any more than
[snip]
Thanks again

Ted.

Ted Byers wrote:

Thanks. Now that you have explained it, I understand what I am seeing.

How does the procedure for crossing them compare with that for phals? I
have tried to cross a phal, and am still waiting for the pod to mature. But
it isn't obvious to me how to do it with a paph without mutilating the
flowers. And how do paphs compare with phals WRT seed production, how long
it takes to pods to mature, how long it takes to reach blooming size, &c.?


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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Hi Jerry,

Thanks.

faster growing plant. 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.

When you take it out of the pot (you can even repot it in spike although I
wouldn't unless I had to), look at the roots and choose a pot that they
will
fit comfortably in.

Thanks. So I can expect to use a pot of about the same size as the one the
pair came in for the larger of the two, and probably a smaller pot for the
smaller one. I would suppose that putting the two plants into separate pots
would have an efect comparable to putting a single plant into a slightly
larger pot.


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that, less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

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?

They are more expensive because they have yet to be cloned so one can only
get copies of a particular plant by dividing it making awarded ones
expensive. And the seedlings tend to grow slower than other orchids
although some paphs grow quickly and some are notoriously slow to mature.
Also, some don't make a lot of seed...

OK. But this suggests that there may be an opportunity for a patient man to
make a bit more from them than would be the case for phals.

Do you have any ideas or info on why they haven't been clond yet?

Also, you can overwater Paphs and some like to be pretty dry (concolor and
the other brachys) although underwatering them is more common, especially
under lights.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if they can be over watered, but I am guessing
that is harder to do than it is for phals. But I was thinking of the
beginner, whose most likely mistake is to overwater, something that paphs
would likely handle better than phals. And I am guessing that a watering
frequency that would make paphs happy would likely drown a phal.

Cheers,

Ted

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
title/title
/head
body
Jerry Hoffmeister wrote:br
blockquote type="cite" cite="midGLfDa.14585$d51.64599@sccrnsc01"
pre wrap=""It's the second time this week I'm seeing the comment that Paphs are not
quite orchids (the other was in the Paph article in the latest Orchids I
think) - could you elaborate?

/pre
/blockquote
    Well... I don't have the primary reference material in front of
me.  But the general gist is that at both the phenotypic (what you see)
and genotypic (what the DNA looks like) level,  Cyps (including Paphs,
phrags, cyps, and selenopediums, probably) are sufficiently different
from the other 'true orchids' that they should be in their own group. 
The argument might be that if someone were to trip over a Paph.
rothschildianum on a Borneo mountaintop today, and that was the first
time that a paph had been described, it wouldn't be described as an
orchid.br
    br
        So, orchids and cypripediums diverged some substantial time ago
(megayears, in evolutionary terms), probably before the breakup of the
pangaean supercontinent (since they are everywhere).   According to the
NCBI (which isn't a taxonomic authority, and may not be completely up
on current subtleties), they are all (now) in the ordera title="order"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=73496&lvl=3&p= 17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1 &srchmode=1&unlock"strong
Asparagales/strong/a (including asparagus, agaves, onions, clivia, 
daffodils...), in the class a title="order"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=73496&lvl=3&p= 17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1 &srchmode=1&unlock"strong/strong/aa
title="class"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=4447&lvl=3&p=1 7&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1& amp;srchmode=1&unlock"strongLiliopsida/strong/a.
  a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158330&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongCypripedioide ae/strong/a
are still in the family a title="family"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=4747&lvl=3&p=1 7&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep=1& amp;srchmode=1&unlock"strongOrchidaceae/strong/a,
and share the same rank as the a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158332&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongEpidendroidea e/strong/a  
(most of the things you think of as orchids),  a title="subfamily"
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=158331&lvl=3&p =17&p=20&p=37&p=38&lin=f&keep= 1&srchmode=1&unlock"strongOrchidoidea e/strong/a
(remarkably, most of the things you rarely think of, if you do at all),
and the Vanilloideae (tasty ice cream tribe).br
br
    If you are still with me, the cyps are pretty different from
cattleyas and phals.  Taxonomy is only a poor picture of real life,
drawn with a rather thick brush.  But horticulturally they are still
orchids.  And no orchid grower is going to say they aren't orchids.  So
I wouldn't worry about it.br
br
Robbr
pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"--
Rob's Rules: a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.msu.edu/~halgren"http://www.msu.edu/~halgren/a
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit/pre
/body
/html

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

Ted Byers wrote:

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


One of the great mysteries. It actually is possible to clone
paphs. EFG Orchids had some luck with a few stem props using paphs,
remarkably enough. I've heard various anecdotal reports of a few paphs
being cloned. There is a section in Arditti's 'Micropropagation of
Orchids' on the subject. He didn't report much success, but there is a
protocol. Part of the problem seems to be 'Well, it can't be done, why
try', and part is that is it just plain hard to do it reliably.
Contamination is evidently a big issue.

Phrags are probably easier. Phrag Sedenii has been very sucessfully
cloned ('Blush'?). There was a paper published in a german orchid
journal (Die Orchideen?) quite some time ago (I have a copy somewhere,
but I'm not sure where). Herman Pigors at Oak Hill repeated the process
based on the paper and told me it worked. I've 'cloned' phrags in flask
(some crosses tend to clonally multiply in flask). Never tried taking
adult material and propagating it though.

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.


Well... You have more of a 'Novelty' type paph. Many paphs have
mottled or tesselated leaves. And they can be quite different. Paph
malipoense has wonderful tesselated leaves, but is not nearly as easy to
grow as Paph. Maudiae. Maudiae is Paph. lawrencianum x callosum. One
of the first paph (or orchid) hybrids ever made, registered in 1900.
Anything made with that group of paphs (the barbatum section) is often
referred to as 'Maudiae type'. Most of the Maudiae type have Maudiae in
the background, it is a good parent. If you have seen the 'vinicolor'
paphs, those are mainly Maudiae type. Another standard is the ice
green/white, exemplified by Maudiae "The Queen" AM/RHS
(http://www.ladyslipper.com/2184j.htm). Also has a Silver Medal from
the CSA, and I think AM/RHS too. Maudiae type paphs will look very
similar in form to this one.

If you are interested in paph breeding, there is another good book
by Koopowitz and Hasegawa, Novelty Slipper Orchids. Out of print, probably.

A lot of paph pictures at Antec's site (www.ladyslipper.com). More
than you can look at... I have a bunch too, but not all of the highest
quality. http://www.msu.edu/~halgren/orchids/orchidpc.htm

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Phrags are probably easier. Phrag Sedenii has been very sucessfully
cloned ('Blush'?). There was a paper published in a german orchid
journal (Die Orchideen?) quite some time ago (I have a copy somewhere,
but I'm not sure where). Herman Pigors at Oak Hill repeated the process
based on the paper and told me it worked. I've 'cloned' phrags in flask
(some crosses tend to clonally multiply in flask). Never tried taking
adult material and propagating it though.

Hmmmmmmm. I don't read German. Is there a write-up of the method and
current experience with it, along with a comparison with other methods and
taxa, available in English?


Well... You have more of a 'Novelty' type paph. Many paphs have
mottled or tesselated leaves. And they can be quite different. Paph
malipoense has wonderful tesselated leaves, but is not nearly as easy to
grow as Paph. Maudiae. Maudiae is Paph. lawrencianum x callosum. One
of the first paph (or orchid) hybrids ever made, registered in 1900.
Anything made with that group of paphs (the barbatum section) is often
referred to as 'Maudiae type'. Most of the Maudiae type have Maudiae in
the background, it is a good parent. If you have seen the 'vinicolor'
paphs, those are mainly Maudiae type. Another standard is the ice
green/white, exemplified by Maudiae "The Queen" AM/RHS
(http://www.ladyslipper.com/2184j.htm). Also has a Silver Medal from
the CSA, and I think AM/RHS too. Maudiae type paphs will look very
similar in form to this one.

Thanks. That is an attractive flower, except for the green. I am not sure
I like green in a flower, Not eough contrast with the green of the foliage.
Maybe it is just a matter of taste, or maybe it grows on you ... :-)

If you are interested in paph breeding, there is another good book
by Koopowitz and Hasegawa, Novelty Slipper Orchids. Out of print,
probably.

I'll be sure to take a look for this. Thanks.

A lot of paph pictures at Antec's site (www.ladyslipper.com). More
than you can look at... I have a bunch too, but not all of the highest
quality. http://www.msu.edu/~halgren/orchids/orchidpc.htm

You have some very nice plants and pictures. Of those I saw on Antec's
site, I think I like those in the brachypetalum and parvisepalum sections
the best. Where do these fall in your scale of seed productivity from
effectively sterile to able to produce a few thousand seeds? And what about
ease of growth relative to other paphs? I think that with some of the
others, it may be necessary to see them in the flesh to get a better sense
of them.

Cheers,

Ted

Thanks Rob, not worried, just curious. And yes, they do look very different
considering the pouch/slipper instead of a lip and the fused sepals...

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Jerry Hoffmeister wrote:

It's the second time this week I'm seeing the comment that Paphs are not
quite orchids (the other was in the Paph article in the latest Orchids I
think) - could you elaborate?

Well... I don't have the primary reference material in front of me.
But the general gist is that at both the phenotypic (what you see) and
genotypic (what the DNA looks like) level, Cyps (including Paphs, phrags,
cyps, and selenopediums, probably) are sufficiently different from the other
'true orchids' that they should be in their own group. The argument might
be that if someone were to trip over a Paph. rothschildianum on a Borneo
mountaintop today, and that was the first time that a paph had been
described, it wouldn't be described as an orchid.

So, orchids and cypripediums diverged some substantial time ago
(megayears, in evolutionary terms), probably before the breakup of the
pangaean supercontinent (since they are everywhere). According to the NCBI
(which isn't a taxonomic authority, and may not be completely up on current
subtleties), they are all (now) in the order Asparagales (including
asparagus, agaves, onions, clivia, daffodils...), in the class Liliopsida.
Cypripedioideae are still in the family Orchidaceae, and share the same rank
as the Epidendroideae (most of the things you think of as orchids),
Orchidoideae (remarkably, most of the things you rarely think of, if you do
at all), and the Vanilloideae (tasty ice cream tribe).

If you are still with me, the cyps are pretty different from cattleyas
and phals. Taxonomy is only a poor picture of real life, drawn with a
rather thick brush. But horticulturally they are still orchids. And no
orchid grower is going to say they aren't orchids. So I wouldn't worry
about it.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

faster growing plant. 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.

When you take it out of the pot (you can even repot it in spike although
I
wouldn't unless I had to), look at the roots and choose a pot that they
will
fit comfortably in.

Thanks. So I can expect to use a pot of about the same size as the one
the
pair came in for the larger of the two, and probably a smaller pot for the
smaller one. I would suppose that putting the two plants into separate
pots
would have an efect comparable to putting a single plant into a slightly
larger pot.

Makes sense although until u unpot it, you really can't tell. The smaller
plant may have a larger root system...


When in doubt, water it. That is in contrast to almost
everything
else, where the rule is "when in doubt, don't". Other than that,
less
light than your catts. Everything else is about the same. Paphs
are
very easy once you have killed a couple... *grin*. Actually paphs
are
very easy, and this hybrid is easier than most.

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?

They are more expensive because they have yet to be cloned so one can
only
get copies of a particular plant by dividing it making awarded ones
expensive. And the seedlings tend to grow slower than other orchids
although some paphs grow quickly and some are notoriously slow to
mature.
Also, some don't make a lot of seed...

OK. But this suggests that there may be an opportunity for a patient man
to
make a bit more from them than would be the case for phals.

Yes except the time and materials required to keep it longer add to the cost
to the grower...

Do you have any ideas or info on why they haven't been clond yet?

Actually, I believe it's being worked on and there has been some success.
I've heard rumors... But basically, the techniques that have been
successful for cloning other orchids just don't work for Paphs - another
indication that maybe they're not really orchids

Also, you can overwater Paphs and some like to be pretty dry (concolor
and
the other brachys) although underwatering them is more common,
especially
under lights.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if they can be over watered, but I am
guessing
that is harder to do than it is for phals. But I was thinking of the
beginner, whose most likely mistake is to overwater, something that paphs
would likely handle better than phals. And I am guessing that a watering
frequency that would make paphs happy would likely drown a phal.

Yes, that I believe would especially be true for most of the hybrids. I do
have several that I've killed or almost killed by over watering (concolor,
sukhakulii, bellatulum and it's cousins). Also, you still want to make sure
the leaves especially the crown is dry by the time it cools off in the
evening.

Take care,
Jerry

Ted Byers wrote:



Hmmmmmmm. I don't read German. Is there a write-up of the method and
current experience with it, along with a comparison with other methods and
taxa, available in English?


I don't read german well... Best I can recommend is Arditti's book
(Micropropagation of Orchids). It is a little out of date now, but has
quite a bit of information. Especially for the other genera. It used
to be sold through AOS, might be on Amazon, or in your local university
library. I don't know of any reviews of the current status of paph
cloning. There is (or was) a substantial cash prize for the first
person to demonstrate a reliable method - or so I was once told. If
there is money on the line, I don't expect a lot of publications...
But if somebody points me to it, I'd be glad to read it. Might make a
good paper for some starving graduate student. Just the review part, I
wouldn't recommend paph cloning as a thesis project.

Thanks. That is an attractive flower, except for the green. I am not sure
I like green in a flower, Not eough contrast with the green of the foliage.
Maybe it is just a matter of taste, or maybe it grows on you ... :-)


I find it attractive because of the green...

You have some very nice plants and pictures. Of those I saw on Antec's
site, I think I like those in the brachypetalum and parvisepalum sections
the best. Where do these fall in your scale of seed productivity from
effectively sterile to able to produce a few thousand seeds? And what about
ease of growth relative to other paphs? I think that with some of the
others, it may be necessary to see them in the flesh to get a better sense
of them.


Not bad for a page that has been up since 1993... Maybe it was
1994... Someday I'll update it. Don't know about the fertility. If
you cross too far between groups, it goes way down. Most of the brachy x
parvi stuff seems to be reasonably fertile. I guess it would depend on
how much you want. When I was doing it, I was happy to get two flasks,
and would throw the rest away. I'd keep four flasks, but only if I was
expecting Nirvana (drat, it has already been registered. Nirvana =
Alcibiades x Aureum, 1914). Like all plant breeding, the only way to
find out is to ask somebody who does a lot of it, and to do it yourself
for a few dozen years. I haven't really done any hybridizing since I
was in graduate school, and that is getting farther and farther away.
And of course get yourself a copy of Wildcatt
(http://www.wildcattdata.com/), which is both cheap and immensely useful.

All paphs are easy to grow... If you know how to grow them. Those
brachy and parvis that you like tend to grow a bit on the dry side, and
they would probably like to be a little cooler too. The hybrids are
easier than the species. I find emersonii and micranthum picky.
Delenatii is a weed. Malipoense is easy to grow, but not as easy to
bloom. All of the brachys are pretty easy (niveum, concolor, etc), with
the exception of bellatulum in my hands. Never had a problem with any
hybrid, except emersonii hybrids.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Not bad for a page that has been up since 1993... Maybe it was
1994... Someday I'll update it.

While updates are nice, it is good to have older pages provided the
information on them is correct. For the sort of pages of interest to me,
once written, they should only be updated to corect errors or add new
information. Being continually updated is not necessarily a good thing.

Don't know about the fertility. If
you cross too far between groups, it goes way down. Most of the brachy x
parvi stuff seems to be reasonably fertile. I guess it would depend on
how much you want. When I was doing it, I was happy to get two flasks,
and would throw the rest away. I'd keep four flasks, but only if I was
expecting Nirvana (drat, it has already been registered. Nirvana =
Alcibiades x Aureum, 1914). Like all plant breeding, the only way to
find out is to ask somebody who does a lot of it, and to do it yourself
for a few dozen years. I haven't really done any hybridizing since I
was in graduate school, and that is getting farther and farther away.
And of course get yourself a copy of Wildcatt
(http://www.wildcattdata.com/), which is both cheap and immensely useful.

I'll get Wildcatt in due course, of course.

All paphs are easy to grow... If you know how to grow them. Those
brachy and parvis that you like tend to grow a bit on the dry side, and
they would probably like to be a little cooler too. The hybrids are
easier than the species. I find emersonii and micranthum picky.
Delenatii is a weed. Malipoense is easy to grow, but not as easy to
bloom. All of the brachys are pretty easy (niveum, concolor, etc), with
the exception of bellatulum in my hands. Never had a problem with any
hybrid, except emersonii hybrids.

Terrific. I take it, from what you say, that delenatii is both a prolific
producer of seed and hardy to the point of being almost indestructible.
Does it generally pass that on to hybrids it is used to make?

It is good to know that the plants that appeal most to me are likely to be
reasonably fertile. :-)

Thanks again

Ted