Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

Actually, the plant has no lip and the lateral sepals have fused into a single structure.

I have seen that in phals before, and have no idea why that happens, but it tends not to hold for
future blooming.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!

.. . . . . . . . . . .
"Roy" wrote in message m...
Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

On 22 May 2004 21:53:55 -0700, (Roy) wrote:

Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

IT is very beautiful. Can you also post a photo of the back of
the flower? I am curious about these changes.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

I had the same thing happen on a philshill this year. The 1st 2 flowers on
the spike were as you posted (no lip), but the others on the same spike were
normal. The plant is among 50 others flowering in the same area of the
greenhouse all with normal flowers. The philshill has flowered before and
never done this. Who knows? Maybe next year a different one will do it.
Gary

"Roy" wrote in message
m...
Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

It is kind of pretty. This happens occasionally to a single flower or two
on an inflorescence of otherwise normal flowers. It is not a very
consistent mutation. My guess is that it is caused by temperature or
diurnal range stresses while buds and spikes are developing and that some
species/hybrids are more susceptible to it than others. But this is just a
guess, I don't know why it happens.

Anybody care to speculate if they think this fits into the set of
"abnormally regular" mutations required to define it as 'peloric' :-)

Al

"Roy" wrote in message
m...
Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:50:07 -0400, "Al"
wrote:

It is kind of pretty. This happens occasionally to a single flower or two
on an inflorescence of otherwise normal flowers. It is not a very
consistent mutation. My guess is that it is caused by temperature or
diurnal range stresses while buds and spikes are developing and that some
species/hybrids are more susceptible to it than others. But this is just a
guess, I don't know why it happens.

Anybody care to speculate if they think this fits into the set of
"abnormally regular" mutations required to define it as 'peloric' :-)

Al

Well you have to agree
(1) it is abnormal.
(2) It is regular: 2 to 2.
Therefore (3) it is peloric.


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

regular and trilaterally symmetric? Isn't the inner whorl still irregular,
even though it is not it's "normal" state of irregularity? It has two
petals and no lip rather than three petals and a lip. It has bilateral
symmetry, yes, but so does the normally irregular inner whorl of the orchid
flower. I would think the three petals of the inner whorl need to be
mutated in some whey to make them all similar to each other for it to be
peloric by the botanical definition of the word..

....just playing devil's advocate, SuE



"Susan Erickson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:50:07 -0400, "Al"
wrote:

It is kind of pretty. This happens occasionally to a single flower or
two
on an inflorescence of otherwise normal flowers. It is not a very
consistent mutation. My guess is that it is caused by temperature or
diurnal range stresses while buds and spikes are developing and that some
species/hybrids are more susceptible to it than others. But this is just
a
guess, I don't know why it happens.

Anybody care to speculate if they think this fits into the set of
"abnormally regular" mutations required to define it as 'peloric' :-)

Al

Well you have to agree
(1) it is abnormal.
(2) It is regular: 2 to 2.
Therefore (3) it is peloric.


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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:40:50 -0400, "Al"
wrote:

regular and trilaterally symmetric? Isn't the inner whorl still irregular,
even though it is not it's "normal" state of irregularity? It has two
petals and no lip rather than three petals and a lip. It has bilateral
symmetry, yes, but so does the normally irregular inner whorl of the orchid
flower. I would think the three petals of the inner whorl need to be
mutated in some whey to make them all similar to each other for it to be
peloric by the botanical definition of the word..

...just playing devil's advocate, SuE


I expected as much when I posted. But Even thou a standard
definition of peloric would require a third lip or 3 petals - I
think this is equally symmetric and abnormal in its irregularity.
It has both the petals and the sepals abnormally truncated from 3
to 2 and they display opposite one another. Thus the display is
symmetric and the flower is symmetrically balanced in appearance.

So devil's advocate -- how is that not peloric? Where did it say
that it had to maintain 3 "petal/lip" parts? Or 3 sepal parts? I
heard only the symmetrical in its irregularity of the flower
parts.

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

peloric
\Pe*lo"ric\, a. (Bot.) Abnormally regular or symmetrical. --Darwin.

I do not really know what Darwin means here. I think he coined the term.
He used it 3 or 4 times in "The Origin of Species." (peloric, peloria) I
was able to locate 1 instance from online publications of this book. It
refers only to color or marking variation on petals. My golly, the sentence
structure in this book is Victorian at it's most difficult.

I can not say if Darwin would agree with you or not about the flower in the
epicure but I have been unable to get in touch with him to ask. As devil's
advocate, he and I are housed on a different levels of hell and
communication between levels is notoriously spotty even in this age of
wireless communication and as you might guess, this being hell, most cases
where the technology works are somewhat nefarious.

I do believe the word peloric is alive and well and in no way fixed in
meaning by it's botanical definition. Use it anyway you want. If you say
it is peloric I will know what you mean. :-)

Al
The sign on my little red tag says: Caution: when cornered may dissemble
without warning.

"Susan Erickson" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:40:50 -0400, "Al"
wrote:

I expected as much when I posted. But Even thou a standard
definition of peloric would require a third lip or 3 petals - I
think this is equally symmetric and abnormal in its irregularity.
It has both the petals and the sepals abnormally truncated from 3
to 2 and they display opposite one another. Thus the display is
symmetric and the flower is symmetrically balanced in appearance.

So devil's advocate -- how is that not peloric? Where did it say
that it had to maintain 3 "petal/lip" parts? Or 3 sepal parts? I
heard only the symmetrical in its irregularity of the flower
parts.

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

Susan,
I have posted 4 photos of the flower.
1. The back of the flower (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal1.JPG)
2. The lower sepals and lower petal fused into a single structu
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal2.JPG)
3. Side view of the flower (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal3.JPG)
4. The infloresence (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal4.JPG)
(please make sure that 'JPG' is in uppercase when you type the url on
the web browser)

I have cut the infloresence and put it in a vase, hoping that the
plant will produce another infloresence soon. I will inform you all
when it happens.


Susan Erickson wrote in message . ..
On 22 May 2004 21:53:55 -0700, (Roy) wrote:

Hi, I just want to share the picture of one of my Phalaenopsis
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal.jpg).
The form of the flower is strange, I think the two lower sepals merge
with the lip.

IT is very beautiful. Can you also post a photo of the back of
the flower? I am curious about these changes.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

On 24 May 2004 21:47:39 -0700, (Roy) wrote:

Susan,
I have posted 4 photos of the flower.
1. The back of the flower (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal1.JPG)
2. The lower sepals and lower petal fused into a single structu
(http://www.ptgdi.com/phal2.JPG)
3. Side view of the flower (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal3.JPG)
4. The infloresence (http://www.ptgdi.com/phal4.JPG)
(please make sure that 'JPG' is in uppercase when you type the url on
the web browser)

I have cut the infloresence and put it in a vase, hoping that the
plant will produce another infloresence soon. I will inform you all
when it happens.

Thanks for the photos. I like this form, even if the 'alien Al'
does not think it Peloric.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php