I deleted the original message before I remembered to respond, so maybe
I won't get to everything. Question 1, what is the difference between
paphs and phrags? Well, you can tell just by looking at the leaves. Or
I can... I can't say offhand what is different, phrags are usually more
conduplicate (folded in the middle) and the substance is different.
Tend to have more shine too. The roots are generally different, with
paphs having 'fuzzier' roots. This may be reflective of habitat, since
many phrags prefer a moister environment. There is a big difference in
the flowers, but the easiest one to see is if you cut open the ovary
transversely (in the short direction). Paphs have a tripartite ovary,
with the chambers non-distinct. In other words, one big kind of three
pointy space in the middle. Phrags have three distinct chambers. At
least I seem to remember that being one of the diagnostic features, a
taxonomist or somebody who has done slipper flasking more recently than
I will probably shoot me down.

Question 2, can you clone paphs and phrags? Interestingly, the answer
is yes. Or at least you can mericlone Phrag. Sedenii 'Blush' (published
in Die Orchideen quite some time ago, and repeated by Oak Hill), and
stem prop several different Paphs (anecdotally reported to me by a few
different growers who I have no reason to disbelieve). I've personally
cloned some Phrag Hanne Popow (starting from flasked material, but
still...). Mericloning paphs is not very successful. The limiting
factor for all slippers seems to be contamination, in that the meristems
are hard to get free of fungus. It can be done, but not in a reliable
fashion, and getting sufficient material to start often involves
destroying most or all of the growing points on the desired plant. The
growth media mericloning slippers hasn't been worked out, of course,
given all of the other problems. So, given that mericloning very rarely
works and is not unlikely to destroy the parent, it isn't really that
popular an option. It is a stated 'Holy Grail' of the slipper
community, but I suspect most people who actually make money selling and
breeding slippers would just as soon keep the status quo. You can get
more money for divisions if you can't make a lot of them.

Question 3. There is no question 3...

Question 4. Is there a difference besides the new world/ old world
distinction. Well, yes. See (1). But the big difference is that they
are group incompatible. You can't make Phragmipaphiums. There is one
(I think only one) registered, but it probably isn't a true hybrid. You
can't make Selenipaphiums, or Cypripaphiums either. Or at least not
that I've heard. That alone argues that they are different, and
substantially so. This may be (and I'm making s**t up here) due to the
evolutionary distance - the American continents split off from the
supercontinent a way long time ago, these plants have had plenty of time
to drift apart. They are certainly related, I don't think anybody will
argue with that, but the fact that they look similar is not really of
any consequence. And they aren't that similar, really, not if you have
seen a lot of each. Dendrobium phalaenopsis and Phalaenopsis amabile
are similar to the unitiated too, but they aren't very closely related.

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

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
I deleted the original message before I remembered to respond, so maybe
Thanks for this. The only thing you missed was the variability I have seen
between successive flowers on the first inflorescence my only phrag has
produced.

Here is what I wrote:
"WRT the one phrag I have, it is a first bloom seedling, presently on its
second flower (i.e. the second flower on the first inflorescence it has ever
produced), and it seems to me this flower is quite different from the first
on the same inflorescence. The first had MUCH richer colours, pink and
yellow, while the second seems to have the same colours but mostly washed
out. Also, the laterial petals on the first (they are petals aren't they,
and not the sepals?) were quite flat while on the second they are twisted
like a cork screw. The top sepal on both was and is quite flat. Is such
variability in the flowers normal for phrags in particular, or for lady's
slippers in general?"

You wrote: "And they aren't that similar, really, not if you have seen a lot
of each." This is undoubtedly why I can't tell the difference yet, just
looking at the leaves and flowers. I am nowhere near the stage where I want
to be dissecting such pretty flowers. If they are as different as Dends are
from phals, it is just a matter of time before I can tell the difference.
But it seems to me that the flowers of phals and those of even the phal type
dends are quite different, much more so than those of the lady's slipper
genera. Maybe that is a false impression created by the lady's slipper
cultivars that appeal to me.

Cheers,

Ted

Ted Byers wrote:

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...


I deleted the original message before I remembered to respond, so maybe


Thanks for this. The only thing you missed was the variability I have seen
between successive flowers on the first inflorescence my only phrag has
produced.


For besseae hybrids (especially) color is influenced by
temperature. Colors are always brighter and more intense when flowers
develop in cool temperatures. The flowers of the same plant of Hanne
Popow (besseae x schlimii) bloomed in the summer and winter can be so
different as to cause you to suspect the tags have been messed up. That
might be what you are seeing. And the flower size and shape is also
determined by the prevailing conditions when the bud develops. A little
water stress one day, a stiff breeze the next, a cloud or two on the
third... With sequentially flowering plants, the conditions can be
different with each flower bud. With plants that bloom their
inflorescences all at once, the flowers are more consistent. And I
don't think it is wrong to suggest that for many orchids (not just
phrags), the first flower is usually the largest, with flowers getting
smaller (perceptibly or not) as you get towards the end of the
inflorescence.

You wrote: "And they aren't that similar, really, not if you have seen a lot
of each." This is undoubtedly why I can't tell the difference yet, just
looking at the leaves and flowers. I am nowhere near the stage where I want
to be dissecting such pretty flowers. If they are as different as Dends are
from phals, it is just a matter of time before I can tell the difference.
But it seems to me that the flowers of phals and those of even the phal type
dends are quite different, much more so than those of the lady's slipper
genera. Maybe that is a false impression created by the lady's slipper
cultivars that appeal to me.


Dendrobium phalaenopsis is called that because the flowers are like
Phalaenopsis. It is an extreme example. The plants themselves are very
different. And the flowers are pretty different, but similar enough to
cause confusion if you haven't seen a lot of orchids. Phrags and paphs
are much more similar to each other (especially the vegetative parts),
so there is no shame in not being able to tell them apart at a glance.
When you have seen a few thousand of each you will get pretty good at
it. I might make a mistake once in a while myself, just looking at
plants. With a flowering plant it is much, much easier. Practice makes
pretty good (not perfect!).

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

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
plants. With a flowering plant it is much, much easier. Practice makes
pretty good (not perfect!).

;-)

I recall one chap saying that it is incorrect to say that practice makes
perfect. Rather, he says, practice makes permanent, and only perfect
practice makes perfect.

Cheers,

Ted

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


For besseae hybrids (especially) color is influenced by
temperature. Colors are always brighter and more intense when flowers
develop in cool temperatures. The flowers of the same plant of Hanne
Popow (besseae x schlimii) bloomed in the summer and winter can be so
different as to cause you to suspect the tags have been messed up. That
might be what you are seeing. And the flower size and shape is also
determined by the prevailing conditions when the bud develops. A little
water stress one day, a stiff breeze the next, a cloud or two on the
third... With sequentially flowering plants, the conditions can be
different with each flower bud. With plants that bloom their

I believe the vendor bloomed it out in his greenhouse, which is quite humid.
That flower dropped off after several days in my house, and the second,
current flower was produced under lights, with RH around 50% right now.

I have no idea what is in it's background. The tag is hard to read, because
of the thickness of the marker used to write it, but it looks like Phrag.
Dan Wimber.

Cheers,

Ted

I believe the vendor bloomed it out in his greenhouse, which is quite humid.
That flower dropped off after several days in my house, and the second,
current flower was produced under lights, with RH around 50% right now.



That would explain a lot... That and the stress of moving from one
place to the other probably doesn't help much.

I have no idea what is in it's background. The tag is hard to read, because
of the thickness of the marker used to write it, but it looks like Phrag.
Dan Wimber.



Don Wimber, actually. That is besseae x Eric Young. Eric Young is
besseae x longifolium. So you have Phrag. besseae as a parent and a
grandparent. That explains a lot of your color issues...

Don Wimber is one of my favorite phrags. A great hybrid, and easy
to grow and bloom. A weed, actually. Good choice. If you like it, you
might also like (now i sound like Amazon.com!) Hanne Popow (besseae x
schlimii), or Jason Fischer (Mem. Dick Clements x besseae - also two
doses of besseae). Those are a couple other easy and very attractive ones.

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

Ted,

After Rob's explanation of the differences, when a flower is spent and falls
off, should be a good time to disect it. I plan to when I next have the
chance.

Bob
"Ted Byers" wrote in message
...

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


For besseae hybrids (especially) color is influenced by
temperature. Colors are always brighter and more intense when flowers
develop in cool temperatures. The flowers of the same plant of Hanne
Popow (besseae x schlimii) bloomed in the summer and winter can be so
different as to cause you to suspect the tags have been messed up. That
might be what you are seeing. And the flower size and shape is also
determined by the prevailing conditions when the bud develops. A little
water stress one day, a stiff breeze the next, a cloud or two on the
third... With sequentially flowering plants, the conditions can be
different with each flower bud. With plants that bloom their

I believe the vendor bloomed it out in his greenhouse, which is quite
humid.
That flower dropped off after several days in my house, and the second,
current flower was produced under lights, with RH around 50% right now.

I have no idea what is in it's background. The tag is hard to read,
because
of the thickness of the marker used to write it, but it looks like Phrag.
Dan Wimber.

Cheers,

Ted

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...

Don Wimber, actually. That is besseae x Eric Young. Eric Young is
besseae x longifolium. So you have Phrag. besseae as a parent and a
grandparent. That explains a lot of your color issues...

Thanks.

Don Wimber is one of my favorite phrags. A great hybrid, and easy
to grow and bloom. A weed, actually. Good choice. If you like it, you
might also like (now i sound like Amazon.com!) Hanne Popow (besseae x
schlimii), or Jason Fischer (Mem. Dick Clements x besseae - also two
doses of besseae). Those are a couple other easy and very attractive
ones.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for them.

Cheers,

Ted

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:00:55 GMT, "Bob Walsh"
wrote:

Ted,

After Rob's explanation of the differences, when a flower is spent and falls
off, should be a good time to disect it. I plan to when I next have the
chance.

Bob

Good Idea Bob. The Phrag flower will fall off looking as perfect
as the day it opened. It will sit on the table and MOCK you for
thinking it should last longer. So it will even be in good
condition when you slice it up. I think I will try too.


SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php