I seem to have messed up with the url, this works better:-

http://i34.tinypic.com/153y7g9.jpg

Dave C.

In message , DC
writes
I seem to have messed up with the url, this works better:-

http://i34.tinypic.com/153y7g9.jpg

Dave C.


Phalaenopis (moth orchid), I think, but I've no idea which one.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"DC" wrote ...
I seem to have messed up with the url, this works better:-

http://i34.tinypic.com/153y7g9.jpg

Certainly a Phalaenopsis orchid hybrid.

Don't like the pot it's in, the roots need to get light.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Bob wrote:

Certainly a Phalaenopsis orchid hybrid.
Don't like the pot it's in, the roots need to get light.

Funny you should mention this Bob, because it was the topic of a
lengthy conversation I was having with someone only yesterday. Phals
are all epiphytic or lithophytic orchids and as such, the vast
majority of their roots are exposed to light in their natural
habitat. They readily develop chlorophyll as do many other epiphytic
orchids. This must help in augmenting the photosynthetic processes in
the leaves to some degree, although I very much doubt that it becomes
an essential function.

Possibly there are a couple of exceptions amongst species with very
wayward rooting habits. P. schilleriana seems to determinedly push
its flattened, silvery green roots out into the air and I've only ever
grown it well in a basket loosely filled with a couple of big tree
fern chunks, from which the roots hang in copious quantities. If they
grow close to any remotely porous surface, they adhere with
considerable tenacity. Similarly P. stuartiana although I've only
ever admired that in a botanical garden collection where its roots
hung down from an empty basket into the water of a heated pool below.
I've never managed to persuade P. schilleriana to live happily in any
pot without all of its roots remaining on the compost surface and
reaching out into the air. Other species seem much more amenable and
it is from these: Ps. amabilis, cornu-cervi, mannii, violacea etc plus
Doritis sp. that most of the hybrids are derived.

Until very recently, Phalaenopsis hybrids have been grown in normal
pots or baskets and many nurseries still grow them in this way. In
fact they have been grown very successfully in a conventional manner
since their introduction into this country during the 1830's and the
clear plastic pots have only been doing the rounds in the past 10
years or so. I personally dislike the clear pots and whenever I bring
one home from a garden centre, supermarket or diy shed, the first
thing I do is to rehouse it into a normal pot without subsequent
detriment to the plant. Inevitably some roots grow along the surface
of the compost and reach out into the air, but a high proportion head
down into the compost and remain in the dark.

There's absolutely no harm in growing them in clear pots, but I'm
convinced this innovation has more to do with style than address the
absolute needs of the plant.

"Dave Poole" wrote after Bob wrote:

Certainly a Phalaenopsis orchid hybrid.
Don't like the pot it's in, the roots need to get light.

Funny you should mention this Bob, because it was the topic of a
lengthy conversation I was having with someone only yesterday. Phals
are all epiphytic or lithophytic orchids and as such, the vast
majority of their roots are exposed to light in their natural
habitat. They readily develop chlorophyll as do many other epiphytic
orchids. This must help in augmenting the photosynthetic processes in
the leaves to some degree, although I very much doubt that it becomes
an essential function.

Possibly there are a couple of exceptions amongst species with very
wayward rooting habits. P. schilleriana seems to determinedly push
its flattened, silvery green roots out into the air and I've only ever
grown it well in a basket loosely filled with a couple of big tree
fern chunks, from which the roots hang in copious quantities. If they
grow close to any remotely porous surface, they adhere with
considerable tenacity. Similarly P. stuartiana although I've only
ever admired that in a botanical garden collection where its roots
hung down from an empty basket into the water of a heated pool below.
I've never managed to persuade P. schilleriana to live happily in any
pot without all of its roots remaining on the compost surface and
reaching out into the air. Other species seem much more amenable and
it is from these: Ps. amabilis, cornu-cervi, mannii, violacea etc plus
Doritis sp. that most of the hybrids are derived.

Until very recently, Phalaenopsis hybrids have been grown in normal
pots or baskets and many nurseries still grow them in this way. In
fact they have been grown very successfully in a conventional manner
since their introduction into this country during the 1830's and the
clear plastic pots have only been doing the rounds in the past 10
years or so. I personally dislike the clear pots and whenever I bring
one home from a garden centre, supermarket or diy shed, the first
thing I do is to rehouse it into a normal pot without subsequent
detriment to the plant. Inevitably some roots grow along the surface
of the compost and reach out into the air, but a high proportion head
down into the compost and remain in the dark.

There's absolutely no harm in growing them in clear pots, but I'm
convinced this innovation has more to do with style than address the
absolute needs of the plant.

I like the clear pots as it allows me to see the roots and compost at all
times and therefore judge when to water. I am also able to monitor the
health of the roots without tipping the plant out of the pot, I think this
is important as I've always considered the roots of these orchids the key to
success. Keep the roots growing and the plants OK.
My preferred compost is a mixture of live Sphagnum moss and bark chippings.
When I used the normal coloured plastic pots I found the roots tended to
climb out of the pot and, as you mentioned, stick onto anything around if
you weren't careful, which caused serious damage when they needed moving.
Spraying the air roots with rainwater is a bore, having to take care not to
leave water in the crown. Since using the clear pots I've not had one plant
throw roots out of the pot so no spraying needed.

There are close relatives that have no leaves and complete all their
photosynthesis through their roots which has always convinced me that giving
the Phal roots light must be beneficial to the plant, maybe not essential,
but beneficial.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Bob Hobden wrote:
"Dave Poole" wrote after Bob wrote:

Certainly a Phalaenopsis orchid hybrid.
Don't like the pot it's in, the roots need to get light.

Funny you should mention this Bob, because it was the topic of a
lengthy conversation I was having with someone only yesterday. Phals
are all epiphytic or lithophytic orchids and as such, the vast
majority of their roots are exposed to light in their natural
habitat. They readily develop chlorophyll as do many other epiphytic
orchids. This must help in augmenting the photosynthetic processes
in the leaves to some degree, although I very much doubt that it becomes
an essential function.

Possibly there are a couple of exceptions amongst species with very
wayward rooting habits. P. schilleriana seems to determinedly push
its flattened, silvery green roots out into the air and I've only
ever grown it well in a basket loosely filled with a couple of big
tree fern chunks, from which the roots hang in copious quantities. If
they grow close to any remotely porous surface, they adhere with
considerable tenacity. Similarly P. stuartiana although I've only
ever admired that in a botanical garden collection where its roots
hung down from an empty basket into the water of a heated pool below.
I've never managed to persuade P. schilleriana to live happily in any
pot without all of its roots remaining on the compost surface and
reaching out into the air. Other species seem much more amenable and
it is from these: Ps. amabilis, cornu-cervi, mannii, violacea etc
plus Doritis sp. that most of the hybrids are derived.

Until very recently, Phalaenopsis hybrids have been grown in normal
pots or baskets and many nurseries still grow them in this way. In
fact they have been grown very successfully in a conventional manner
since their introduction into this country during the 1830's and the
clear plastic pots have only been doing the rounds in the past 10
years or so. I personally dislike the clear pots and whenever I
bring one home from a garden centre, supermarket or diy shed, the first
thing I do is to rehouse it into a normal pot without subsequent
detriment to the plant. Inevitably some roots grow along the surface
of the compost and reach out into the air, but a high proportion head
down into the compost and remain in the dark.

There's absolutely no harm in growing them in clear pots, but I'm
convinced this innovation has more to do with style than address the
absolute needs of the plant.

I like the clear pots as it allows me to see the roots and compost at
all times and therefore judge when to water. I am also able to
monitor the health of the roots without tipping the plant out of the
pot, I think this is important as I've always considered the roots of
these orchids the key to success. Keep the roots growing and the
plants OK. My preferred compost is a mixture of live Sphagnum moss and
bark
chippings. When I used the normal coloured plastic pots I found the
roots tended to climb out of the pot and, as you mentioned, stick
onto anything around if you weren't careful, which caused serious
damage when they needed moving. Spraying the air roots with rainwater
is a bore, having to take care not to leave water in the crown. Since
using the clear pots I've not had one plant throw roots out of the
pot so no spraying needed.
There are close relatives that have no leaves and complete all their
photosynthesis through their roots which has always convinced me that
giving the Phal roots light must be beneficial to the plant, maybe
not essential, but beneficial.



Phew!, You gentlemen really know your subject!
Thanks for the pointers. The plant was, in fact, in a clear pot inside the
green one. So I've put that in a broader one to let in more light. Also
found some hints on OrchidWeb.com .
Thanks again.

Dave C.

Bob Hobden wrote:

There are close relatives that have no leaves and complete all their
photosynthesis through their roots which has always convinced me that giving
the Phal roots light must be beneficial to the plant, maybe not essential,
but beneficial.

I don't often keep up with taxonomic revisions, but I seem to recall
than many of the so-called leafless 'Angraecoids' were moved to the
Campylocentrinae leaving just a few aberrant genera such as
Microcoelia and Chiloschista, which are very close to Sarcanthus and
somewhat distant from Phalaenopsis. I grew M. Guyoniana for a few
years many moons ago. It consisted of an untidy, radiating cluster of
faintly orange-tinted grey roots most of which hung free with less
than half adhering to the bark on which they were growing. Absolutely
fascinating the way that these plants have done away with foliage and
exist solely as a mass of roots arising from a very abbreviated
rhizome.

The Microcoelia seemed to do well suspended just above a mist
propagator, in full light where contrary to the accepted rule of the
day for these orchids, temps occasionally fell to 10C in winter
without problems. It flowered once before I passed it on, producing
quite a few short, erect spikes of very tiny, glittering white
flowers. Very strange plants indeed and apparent success with this
had me trying to get hold of that ultimate and spectacular 'ghost
orchid' - Polyrrhiza lindenii for a while. Of course it never became
available. Nursery life took over and I had to content myself with
satisfying the needs of the suburban gardener rather than pander to my
own eclectic tastes.

"Dave Poole" wrote
Bob Hobden wrote:

There are close relatives that have no leaves and complete all their
photosynthesis through their roots which has always convinced me that
giving
the Phal roots light must be beneficial to the plant, maybe not
essential,
but beneficial.

I don't often keep up with taxonomic revisions, but I seem to recall
than many of the so-called leafless 'Angraecoids' were moved to the
Campylocentrinae leaving just a few aberrant genera such as
Microcoelia and Chiloschista, which are very close to Sarcanthus and
somewhat distant from Phalaenopsis. I grew M. Guyoniana for a few
years many moons ago. It consisted of an untidy, radiating cluster of
faintly orange-tinted grey roots most of which hung free with less
than half adhering to the bark on which they were growing. Absolutely
fascinating the way that these plants have done away with foliage and
exist solely as a mass of roots arising from a very abbreviated
rhizome.

The Microcoelia seemed to do well suspended just above a mist
propagator, in full light where contrary to the accepted rule of the
day for these orchids, temps occasionally fell to 10C in winter
without problems. It flowered once before I passed it on, producing
quite a few short, erect spikes of very tiny, glittering white
flowers. Very strange plants indeed and apparent success with this
had me trying to get hold of that ultimate and spectacular 'ghost
orchid' - Polyrrhiza lindenii for a while. Of course it never became
available. Nursery life took over and I had to content myself with
satisfying the needs of the suburban gardener rather than pander to my
own eclectic tastes.

I was thinking more of...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeranthes/2809572565/
(Although I thought it was now moved out of Phal)

than
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrophylax_lindenii
Which has been moved!

I just can't keep up with the "splitters".
--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Bob wrote:

I was thinking more of...http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeranthes/2809572565/
(Although I thought it was now moved out of Phal)

Ah well that's a deciduous species in its true habitat rather than an
aphyllous one. However, you make a good point because it endures
seasonal dry periods without leaves and therefore must use its aerial
roots for subsistence since there are no true storage organs. In
cultivation it tends to behave as an evergreen unless forced into
dormancy.

thanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrophylax_lindenii
Which has been moved!

I just can't keep up with the "splitters".

I don't even bother to try Bob. That treasure has been in more genera
than many have had hot dinners and I suspect it will be shifted to
another sub-tribe before very long. It seems to me that the
'splitters' are a bunch of self-serving jitterbugs who cannot allow
the status quo to remain for fear that folks will catch on and realise
that they are too anal for words. Just look what they've done to
Odontoglossum! And to what purpose?

In article ,
Dave Poole writes:
| Bob wrote:
|
| I just can't keep up with the "splitters".
|
| I don't even bother to try Bob. That treasure has been in more genera
| than many have had hot dinners and I suspect it will be shifted to
| another sub-tribe before very long. It seems to me that the
| 'splitters' are a bunch of self-serving jitterbugs who cannot allow
| the status quo to remain for fear that folks will catch on and realise
| that they are too anal for words. Just look what they've done to
| Odontoglossum! And to what purpose?

I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Dave Poole" wrote after Bob wrote:

I was thinking more
of...http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeranthes/2809572565/
(Although I thought it was now moved out of Phal)

Ah well that's a deciduous species in its true habitat rather than an
aphyllous one. However, you make a good point because it endures
seasonal dry periods without leaves and therefore must use its aerial
roots for subsistence since there are no true storage organs. In
cultivation it tends to behave as an evergreen unless forced into
dormancy.

thanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrophylax_lindenii
Which has been moved!

I just can't keep up with the "splitters".

I don't even bother to try Bob. That treasure has been in more genera
than many have had hot dinners and I suspect it will be shifted to
another sub-tribe before very long. It seems to me that the
'splitters' are a bunch of self-serving jitterbugs who cannot allow
the status quo to remain for fear that folks will catch on and realise
that they are too anal for words. Just look what they've done to
Odontoglossum! And to what purpose?

Thank goodness Odonts were never my scene, cost a fortune in new labels.
:-)
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as many years.
If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Nick wrote:

I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob wrote:

Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

In message
,
Dave Poole writes
Nick wrote:

I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Hebe, Derwentia, etc are back in Veronica.

Monadenium and several other genera are sunk in Euphorbia.

There's a proposal to sink Abelmoschus, Kosteletzkya, Malvaviscus,
Pavonia, and another dozen or so genera into Hibiscus.

It's even been suggested that Malus, Sorbus, Amelanchier, Aronia,
Photinia and several more genera be sunk into Pyrus.

There was a (tounge-in-check) proposal to reduce Cactaceae to one genus.

Are you sure that you want the lumpers to reassert themselves.

Bob wrote:

Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.





--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Dave Poole writes:
|
| I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
| every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
| The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
| your head spin. It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
| to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
| species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
| the sake of work and nothing else. It about time for the lumpers to
| reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
| counterparts have wrought.

I quite agree - except that I also agree with Stewart that insane
lumpers are as bad as their counterparts! As well as the people
with prurient prioritis.

| Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
| Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? It's been
| mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
| desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
| pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

Yes. As I have posted, I am disgusted by the proportion of papers
in respectable journals that propose reclassification based on one
totally unreliable and inconsistent datum - or, if you are very
lucky, a couple of them.

| My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
| of taxsodomists!

Yes. If there are major reasons for major reclassification that will
cause trouble to many people - as has happened in the past - they
should not propose that it is acted on until it has been generally
accepted for a couple of decades. There is a chance that it will
then not be reversed because of some later whim.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sep 1, 4:45*am, Dave Poole wrote:
Nick wrote:
I am surprised that you said that - rather than me!

I've become thoroughly cheesed off with having to learn new names
every coule of years Nick and am joining the ranks of grumpy old men.
The way plants are being shunted from pillar to post nowadays makes
your head spin. *It's all well and good having a revision of a genus
to iron out a few irregularities and re-assign one or two aberrant
species, but to screw the whole lot up strikes me as being work for
the sake of work and nothing else. *It about time for the lumpers to
reassert themselves and repair the damage that their schizoid
counterparts have wrought.

Bob *wrote:
Then there's what they have done to confuse us all with Laelia, Sophronitis
and Cattleya, some plants have been in all three seemingly in as many years.

Not forgetting Epidendrum, which has been under attack for some
time.

If they start on the Paphs and Phrags I will get annoyed.

Ah well, what's the betting they'll take Paphs, Phrags (inc Mexi!),
Cyps and Selenipediums out of the orchidaceae altogether? *It's been
mooted before and you can be certain there's some geeky loon out there
desperately poring through the dna in the hope of discovering a
pifling trifle that enables him/her to gain fame or infamy.

My message to them is quite clear, stop buggering things up, you bunch
of taxsodomists!

I'll get my coat.

My personal gripe is a relatively minor one but I only recently
realised that more or less half of the plant families that I used to
know have been done away with. Some genius decided that you cannot
have a plant family that is purely descriptive such as Leguminosae or
Compositae; you have to name the family after one of its genera. In
most cases it is not so hard seeing as the family names are easy to
guess if the chosen genus is a familiar one and most are. I used to
be a taxonomist a long time ago; glad I gave it up; it's a young man's
game now :-).