I have looked and looked trying to fine if this Paphiopedilum has been named. Can’t fine the cross any place.
The label says Paphiopedilum roebelinii ‘Rung’ X Paphiopedilum micranthum
I have had this Paphiopedilum for about 3 years about killed once, but now is doing just fine with 5 growths and one of the growths, is at last… setting flowers; can’t wait to see the flowers open.
Got one more question; is Paphiopedilum roebelinii the same as Paphiopedilum philippinense?
Trying to update my records .
And would this cross be considered for culture purposes in the section Parvisepalum or in the section Corypedilum.
thanks

Paph. roebelinii x Paph. micranthum has not been registered (according to March 05 Wildcatt update)

Lien

Paph. philippinense x Paph. micranthum = Paph. Grassauer Alice, registered in 1995 by Olaf Gruss.

Whether or not P. philippinense=P. roebelinii depends on who you talk to, but for registration purposes, i'm not sure if P. roebelinii is a valid species, since no hybrids have been registered with it. Because of this, i am thinking that it is being treated as a variety of P. philippinense. But I may be wrong, anyone know the correct answer to this?

I think Lien is right! Roeb is like a variety however they have begun renaming all the wilhelminaes haven't they?

Unfortunately, for registration purposes, roebellinii is still considered a variety of philippinense. :disappointed: Unless like wilhelminiae, roebellinii becomes a separate species, then they would have to rename all the hybrids made with roebellinii like Susan Booth made with wilhelminiae is now William Ambler. :roll:

Wow, that will really mess up taxonomy lists. There needs to be some flexibility in these naming charts. Like all plants named before this date_____. Will be called _______. regardless of new species. That's just my 2 cents worth.

It sure does make it confusing. And just think about that mess going on in the long-petaled Phrag species! :roll: What havoc that will cause!

it should be a suprise when the flower open!

It sure does make it confusing. And just think about that mess going on in the long-petaled Phrag species! :roll: What havoc that will cause!

There is already plenty of mess in Phrags. It may or may not get worse. One of the authors of the phrag mess is one of my good friends. And another is a pretty good friend. But even so, I'm not sure the new nomenclature will stick.

Phrag Ecua-Bess == Phrag. Olaf Grus (taxonomy changes...) Registered both ways.

Sedenii, Cardinale, and some others are totally screwed up too. That is just the beginning...

As to roebellinii, I'm pretty convinced it is going to stay at varietal status for a while. I've seen lots and personally I can't see enough in it to promote it to species. But a) I'm not a taxonomist and b) if I were, I'd be a lumper. From my observations, it seems like a lot of that taxonomy is profit driven, you can get a lot more for a new species than for a mere variety...

so do you all think that my orchid would be
Paph. philippinense x Paph. micranthum = Paph. Grassauer Alice, registered in 1995 by Olaf Gruss.
as posted above...

thanks

so do you all think that my orchid would be
Paph. philippinense x Paph. micranthum = Paph. Grassauer Alice, registered in 1995 by Olaf Gruss.
as posted above...

thanks

I would label it like this:
Paph. Grassauer Alice
(P. philippinense v. roebellinii x micranthum)

Keep the parentage on the tag, so that if they ever do accept roebellinii for registration you can change your name. But for now, yes, your plant is Grassauer Alice

thanks I will redo my tag

To my eyes, there are many many obvious differences between phil and roeb and hope that one day like wilheminiae, roebellinii is recognized as a separate species, actually some taxos already do. So, for the mean time, my roebelliniis and phils are 2 separate species under my roof! :lol: