Is there really any differance between paph. godefroye, paph. leuchilum, and paph. ana-thong?

This group of brachypetalums is very closely related. At the present, all are considered P. godefroyae. They are unique populations of the same concept.

Paph godefroyae is the base species, and Paph leucochilum differs only by have no spotting on the pouch. It is considered a variety of P. godefroyae.

Paph x ang-thong is considered by Cribb to be P. godefroyae, but others determined it to be a natural hybrid of P. godefroyae x P. niveum.

RHS now considers them all under the umbrella of P. godefroyae, even though they breed differently and could be considered unique.

This is not unusual in the world of taxonomy and such confusion and clarification is typical.

If I understand you correctly, then its possible to cross 2 godeforyes together, and end up with paph. leuchilum. If this is true then I'm disappointed.

No, that's not what I'm saying.....

If you cross P. godefroyae x P. godefroyae = P. godefroyae

according to Cribb and Kew:

P. godefroyae x P. godefroyae var. leuchochilum = P. godefroyae

also P. godefroyae x p. ang-thong = P. godefroyae

Of course the results will be somewhat different......

I disagree personally with his conclusions, but that is the present thinking by the "experts".

To get P. godefroyae v. leuchochilum, you need to sib cross P. godefroyae v. leuchochilum

Matthew - I don't quite understand your disappointment. If you're dealing with reputable sellers, chances are they're breeding leucochilum to leucochilum, etc. Is there one of the varieties you prefer?

Thanks for the info, I understand what your saying. By any chance do you know if theres anybody in the u.s. right now that has the normal color form of ang-thong? Me personal I've only seen the alba.

Goldenrose I would have been disappointed, if you could cross 2 godefroyes, and get a leuchochilum. Basicly it would have been a waste of money, and I could have spent that money on a number of species which I wont to buy.

Goldenrose I would have been disappointed, if you could cross 2 godefroyes, and get a leuchochilum. Basicly it would have been a waste of money, and I could have spent that money on a number of species which I wont to buy.

My 20 cents worth, if you cross 2 Godefroyae, you won't get a leucochilum. It would have had to be a leuco x leuco cross to start with.
It may be a godefroyae x leuco and the results could favour either parent. The flower color and markings would be the best indicator there. Straight godefroyae has extensive spotting on the pouch where leuco has none whatsoever. Those plants sold as leucochilum that have any spotting at all even so faintly, have straight godefroyae in the cross somewhere.
P. ang-thong is recognised as a Natural Hybrid of P.godefroyae x niveum, if you want the Man Made version buy a Paph Greyi = godefroyae x niveum

Just one question if ang-thong is believed to be a natural cross between godefroye - niveum. Then why wouldn't paph greyi be known as ang-thong.
Very confusing !!!:confused:

This group of brachypetalums is very closely related. At the present, all are considered P. godefroyae. They are unique populations of the same concept.

Paph godefroyae is the base species, and Paph leucochilum differs only by have no spotting on the pouch. It is considered a variety of P. godefroyae.

Paph x ang-thong is considered by Cribb to be P. godefroyae, but others determined it to be a natural hybrid of P. godefroyae x P. niveum.

RHS now considers them all under the umbrella of P. godefroyae, even though they breed differently and could be considered unique.

This is not unusual in the world of taxonomy and such confusion and clarification is typical.

I agree!!!:iagree:

Ramon:D

Just one question if ang-thong is believed to be a natural cross between godefroye - niveum. Then why wouldn't paph greyi be known as ang-thong.
Very confusing !!!:confused:

Exactly!!!

Ramon:D

Wow what a mess, some of it make sense, but I don't know if that was a can of worms I won'ted to open

Varietal status is all about evolutionary common descent and geographic distinctness.

Say you went to a population of godefroyae and found a single plant with a pure white pouch. That plant is still a godefroyae and not a leucochilum because it shares a more recent common ancestor with the rest of its godefroyae posse than it does with leucochilums in a different area.

Varietal status is all about evolutionary common descent and geographic distinctness.

Say you went to a population of godefroyae and found a single plant with a pure white pouch. That plant is still a godefroyae and not a leucochilum because it shares a more recent common ancestor with the rest of its godefroyae posse than it does with leucochilums in a different area.

HUH???? I totally confused here I think or someone is.

Wow what a mess, some of it make sense, but I don't know if that was a can of worms I won'ted to open

You find this confusing. Paph wenshanense, recognised as species on its own. From the mouth an eminant taxonimist who actually saw these plants in the wild being collected noted that they were Natural Hybrids of P.concolor x P.bellatulum.
This cross has also been man made = P. Conco-bellatulum.
Now think of the confusion with two plants apparently of the same parentage being grown, sold & bred with under two different names. It even gets better since the two, wenshanense and Conco-bellatulum have been crossed together, hense a new name yet by rights is Conco-bellatulum x Conco-bellatulum.
If you see what you want, in flower, buy it, its the only way these days.

HUH???? I totally confused here I think or someone is.

I'm just trying to make the point that varietal status is all about evolutionary common descent. There are some plants in populations of godefroyae var. leucochilum that have spotted pouches and there are some plants in populations of godefroyae var. godefroyae that have spotless pouches. In each case, those aberrant plants are still members of the population variety.

All I'm really trying to say is that appearance doesn't necessarily always determine what variety of godefroyae you're dealing with.

Just one question if ang-thong is believed to be a natural cross between godefroye - niveum. Then why wouldn't paph greyi be known as ang-thong.
Very confusing !!!:confused:
Very confusing !!! - yep you got that right! Taxonomist like to do that to us in a couple of areas. That's why it's good to know what you want & deal with a seller that has the variety you're looking for. Have you come across the mess they're making with Phrags - wallisii, popowi, warscewizrianum yet?

Very confusing !!! - yep you got that right! Taxonomist like to do that to us in a couple of areas. That's why it's good to know what you want & deal with a seller that has the variety you're looking for. Have you come across the mess they're making with Phrags - wallisii, popowi, warscewizrianum yet?


Paph x ang-thong is considered by some to be a natural hybrid. Paph Greyi is a man-made hybrid. As discussed with the example of Paph wenshanse above, the hybrid of Paph Conco-bellatulum has a different appearance and is most likely a seperate entity but certain taxonomists have confused the issue. When the plants are hybridized using one name or the other then the system is corrupted by confusion.

The opposite problem is of plants that are considered one name, then later split into seperate entities. During the interim, the plants are hybridized then later split into different Grex names. Examples are Phrag besseae and Phrag d'alessandroi, Paph praestans and Paph wilhemeniae, Phrag caudatum and Phrag warscewiczii (now wallisii).

Taxonomists are captive to a system that is constantly changing as species relationships are better understood. This runs counter to the Sanders hybrid registration system that needs stability over time. Orchidists are just caught in the middle of the conundrum.

[QUOTE=Bill Zimmerman;145701]Paph x ang-thong is considered by some to be a natural hybrid. Paph Greyi is a man-made hybrid. As discussed with the example of Paph wenshanse above, the hybrid of Paph Conco-bellatulum has a different appearance and is most likely a seperate entity but certain taxonomists have confused the issue. When the plants are hybridized using one name or the other then the system is corrupted by confusion.

Bill, in agreement on this subject, one of the biggest problems with these plants is the Commercial Growers that changed the name of their Man Made P.Conco-bellatulums to P.wenshanense. This has been and is being done by many and I would add that it would be near impossible to tell a genuine wenshanense for a Conco-bell' now.

[QUOTE=Bill Zimmerman;145701]Paph x ang-thong is considered by some to be a natural hybrid. Paph Greyi is a man-made hybrid. As discussed with the example of Paph wenshanse above, the hybrid of Paph Conco-bellatulum has a different appearance and is most likely a seperate entity but certain taxonomists have confused the issue. When the plants are hybridized using one name or the other then the system is corrupted by confusion.

Bill, in agreement on this subject, one of the biggest problems with these plants is the Commercial Growers that changed the name of their Man Made P.Conco-bellatulums to P.wenshanense. This has been and is being done by many and I would add that it would be near impossible to tell a genuine wenshanense for a Conco-bell' now.

I thought wenshanense and conco-bellatulum looked nothing like one another and are every easy to separately identify. I believe wenshanense has much larger spots.

David

[QUOTE=Roy;145778]

I thought wenshanense and conco-bellatulum looked nothing like one another and are every easy to separately identify. I believe wenshanense has much larger spots.

David

David, on a search of the net sights, particularly Japanese sites, where the push for the naming of P.wenshanense came from, the variation in flower shape, size, spots, color etc will amaze you. Depending on the breeder and parents used is whether you get large spots, small spots, lots of spots or few spots then add color variations from near white to a fair yellow, need I say more ?

This is how John Robertson explained the whole wenshanense versus conco-bellatulum to me. I take it you don't agree with this?

"Originally all of the collected plants were thought to be natural hybrids of concolor and bellatulum and were a yellow colour with chocolate spotting. However when the cross of concolor and bellatulum was made artificially, the progeny did not resemble the collected plants that were assumed to be concolor x bellatulum.(Cream to white flowers, and fine spotting). These results prompted (breeders first and taxonomists second !) questions about the genetic origins of the collected plants. Breeders had noticed that the collected plants when used as a parent yielded very different results to crosses done with what we now are calling Conco-bellatulum. Finally the taxonomists decided that the collected plants were a species and wenshanense was decided on."

David

Interesting read! Thanks David for the info!

This is how John Robertson explained the whole wenshanense versus conco-bellatulum to me. I take it you don't agree with this?

"Originally all of the collected plants were thought to be natural hybrids of concolor and bellatulum and were a yellow colour with chocolate spotting. However when the cross of concolor and bellatulum was made artificially, the progeny did not resemble the collected plants that were assumed to be concolor x bellatulum.(Cream to white flowers, and fine spotting). These results prompted (breeders first and taxonomists second !) questions about the genetic origins of the collected plants. Breeders had noticed that the collected plants when used as a parent yielded very different results to crosses done with what we now are calling Conco-bellatulum. Finally the taxonomists decided that the collected plants were a species and wenshanense was decided on."

David

This explaination is true if you look at current breeding lines in Conco-bellatulum. Its hard to do but if you can, find pics or botanical paintings of the original man made Conco-bellatulums the similarities are great. Remember of course that the original crossings were done with wild collected species and not the selfed and outcrossed clones of today. Yes, the breeding outcomes today will be different, they have to be. Its not a great comparison to make at all.

David, my info came direct from Dr. Guido Braem who tells me tht he was one of few experts involved in the identification of these plants a long time before they were reclassified by others in a particular circle.

David, have a look at the following website, click on the first green spot with exclaimation mark. Look at the Conco-bellatulums them go down to their P. wenshanense and tell me which ones are which. All this is purely for discussion purposes, nothing else.
www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~PAPHIO-IN-OKINAWA

David, have a look at the following website, click on the first green spot with exclaimation mark. Look at the Conco-bellatulums them go down to their P. wenshanense and tell me which ones are which. All this is purely for discussion purposes, nothing else.
www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~PAPHIO-IN-OKINAWA

Sure is hard to tell them apart. You wonder if there is a bit of mislabelling as well.

Well Braem would know that's for sure.

What I imagined wenshanense to look like is what is currently posted by Birdy. Light yellow with large dark chocoloate spots. I have a wenshanense I bought from John Robertson which is going gangbusters. Should be near flowering size now. I'll be interested to see how it turns out.

http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10032

David

The early populations of what was called P. wenshanense that I have seen were yellow, maybe a bit richer color than concolor with large spots like bellatulum. These were sibbed and produced more of the same. If you did the same with the artificial hybrid of P. Conco-bellatulum, I would guess that some variation would occur.

My personal opinion is that they are seperate, but as you indicate, they have been bred with each other to further confuse the issue.

The same thing was done with Phrag besseae and its relation Phrag d'allesandroi which is either a variety or a unique species. These two have been bred to each other and the progeny were called Phrag besseae. Of course, now this is considered a hybrid but the damage has been done.

[QUOTE=Emydura;145830]Sure is hard to tell them apart. You wonder if there is a bit of mislabelling as well.

What I imagined wenshanense to look like is what is currently posted by Birdy. Light yellow with large dark chocoloate spots. I have a wenshanense I bought from John Robertson which is going gangbusters. Should be near flowering size now. I'll be interested to see how it turns out.
.................................................. .................................................. ......................

Mislabelling or man mades, who knows. The Birdy wenshanense is the typical description but as Bill Z noted and he is quite correct, cross breeding can do some funny things.
Other than growers, like Birdy ????, that have genuine wild collected plants, no-one will ever know if the plant they have is genuine or not.
I have 2 P. wenshanense seedlings that should bloom very soon (no buds yet) that maybe from a different source to yours ( but thats no guaranteed either as many plants are swapped around up there) I'm looking forward to seeing them also. I have visually compared my plants to a known man made Conco-bell' and don't see much variation in leaf patten other than what would be expected from the cross.
NOTE TO ALL.
This looks like being an extended thread for some time or lets continue on from birdys with the wenshanense pics, what do you think ?????

If you haven't caught up with the pics of P.wenshanense in the Paph pic section, flowers and plant. A great shot of the plant months ago. One recent pic to come hopefully. Comparison time flowe leaf color & markings.

Personaly I think this one big mess, its fustriating in a way because as a species collector I wont the real deal when I buy a plant. I only have one question, and that is this: is there anybody in the USA that has a real 100% true paph. wenshanense?