Not quite sure where to post this one...anyway here goes.

Does anyone have Phragmipaphium Hanes' Magic, or any Phragmipaphiums for that matter?

I have the oppertunity to split a flask of a remake of Hanes' Magic (Paph stonei 'Maybrook' AM/AOS x Phrag Albopurpureum 'Sir Arthur' AM/AOS), but need to know what it's cultural requirements are...

It seems like a very interesting cross

I have seen pics of this so called Phrag x Paph hybrid and honestly, I think it is nothing but a Phrag hybrid but that is just my opinion and I think they don't even exist. Do you have pics of the seedlings?

According to the guy I am suppose to split the flask with, they were replated 2 weeks ago. I have only seen 2 photos on the web, and to me it looks like a lot of stonei in it

Hi Gideon, I'm sorry I meant to say Paph hybrid and not Phrag hybrid and yes, they also looked very much like stonei hybrid to me and no sign of any Phrags. Please do post pics when you get your seedlings.

I have seen pics of this so called Phrag x Paph hybrid and honestly, I think it is nothing but a Phrag hybrid but that is just my opinion and I think they don't even exist. Do you have pics of the seedlings?

I used to think like you, but now I am not so sure that such hybrids do not exist. In an Orchid Review for 1911 there is a report on Phragmipaphium Malhouitri, which was exhibited at a RHS meeting (I think), and whose ID was apparently beyond doubt... When I have time I'll try and find the exact reference.

And a few years ago the firm of Rosenheimer (Orchids & More), in Germany, offered for sale plants of a cross between a Phrag and a Paph, the names of which I have forgotten. If they have bloomed is another story of course...

<<<Chun

This hybrid was done years ago by John Hanes and there was an interesting article in the AOS Bulletin (as it was named previously) regarding whether this was a valid cross or not. I believe it was about 20 years ago?? Anyway the appearance was much closer to stonei than the phrag parent although there seemed to be some influence from the phrag. As I recall, there was some investigation regarding the chromosomes and it appeared to be a valid cross.
In my mind, it always appeared questionable but perhaps the stonei was very dominant as the maternal parent.

On Dr. Tanaka's web site, he previously had an article regarding a cross of phrag bessae with a paph which I cannot recall (maybe micranthum?). There was a picture of a flower that looked unlike either parent. The article doesn't appear to be there now...

Here's the link from Dr. Tanaka's site:

http://www.orchid.or.jp/orchid/people/tanaka/Special/enbxm.html


Interesting reading!

I am of the opinion that there's no way to sexually produce a phragmipaphium. The chromosomes of the two genera are too dissimilar and the merging of the nuclei probably never takes place. There was a karyotype analysis in the article Bill mentioned above:

Wimber, Donald, and John Hanes. "Phragmipaphiums - Are They Possible?" American Orchid Society Bulletin 54, no. 1 (Jan 1985): 61-64.

The analysis shows that the genotype was virtually identical to that of P. stonei, the pod parent. The picture included in the article looks very much like it could be P. stonei x P. dianthum, or perhaps an induced selfing of P. stonei.

One thing I would like to see tried is the treatment of any seeds produced with colchicine. It's a long shot, but it could conceivably improve the odds of getting an actual phragmipaphium.

The photo on Dr. Tanaka's website of the purported malipoense x besseae cross is clearly a paph cross involving one of the Cochlopetalum species, probably Paph. moquetteanum, that happens to have a split synsepal.

--Stephen

.

The photo on Dr. Tanaka's website of the purported malipoense x besseae cross is clearly a paph cross involving one of the Cochlopetalum species, probably Paph. moquetteanum, that happens to have a split synsepal.

--Stephen

If you look at the photos on the mentioned website, there are two different crosses shown. One is bessae x malipoense and the other is bessae x micranthum. Both have a similar look except for color. Supposedly bessae was the pod parent for each cross.
If you read the text, they do mention that the flowers do show an affinity with cochlopetalum species crosses but if bessae was used this is something of a mystery.

The person who performed the cross was evidently very careful to have bessae as the pod parent and did the flasking himself. Either he made mistakes or we have something a bit different!

Does anyone have any ideas on what the crosses are if they are not as advertised?
The form looks a bit different than a typical cochlopetalum x parvi cross....

I do agree that they look like cochlopetalum crosses, especially when you see the spotting on the pouch...

For the top cross, what belied the cochlo parent to me was the inflorescence. The hairiness of the spike and the sequential habit look like textbook cochlopetalum. The dark blotch on the center of the staminode is also classic cochlo. The coloration of the dorsal makes me think victoria-regina is a parent (my above guess at moquetteanum is probably wrong). The twin points on the lower edge of the staminode and the width of the petals make me think the second parent is a brachy. Neither malipoense nor besseae have such points.

I would guess at a similar parentage for the bottom cross, only substituting micranthum for the Brachy. More pictures, especially of the inflorescence and staminode, would be helpful.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could make a severe enough mistake to 'accidentally' label this as a Phragmipaphium. A grower is probably making a false claim.

--Stephen

Very interesting reading. My first impression was; no way! After looking some more and thinking a little (hardest part), I believe that the jury is still out on this intergeneric. A little DNA analysis would solve the problem quickly and without much expense. Chromosome analysis may not solve the problem. As to the comment that the genomes are just too different, I disagree on that one. There is probably as much difference between P. pulcherimma and P. equestris as between Phagmipedium and Paphs. I hope that in the future DNA evidence is presented to settle the question because we have the technology now to resolve the dispute rapidly.
Dean Stock