logo

2007 Archived Messages


Click on the week you require.
To return to the main Archive index, click the button at the bottom of the page.
Links to all the Photos and other images accompanying the list messages can be found on the Images page.

MONTHDATEDATEDATEDATEMONTHDATEDATEDATEDATE
January 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31 February 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28
March 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31 April 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-30
May 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31 June 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-30
July 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31 August 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31
September 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-30 October 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31
November 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-30 December 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-31

1—8 December

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] CITES and conservation for Rocky
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

I looked at your picture. I can see why the Dutch factories are not into
mass producing hammer orchids − and it is possible to speculate that if all
orchids were as non-photogenic as this, there would be no conservation
problem − but then, we (orchid growers) wouldn't care much either way − but
then we wouldn't be orchid growers anyway. The moral/ethical consequences of
this make my mind reel − its too early in the day .

I give up.

Geoff

Tony Watkinson wrote on 30 November 2007:

> For those of you who are wondering what a Hammer Orchid is, here is a
> picture of one. Drakaea sp. of some sort.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Name that Orchid
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

I had Tony's mail but it got into my spam box − as a small percentage of
List mails do. Unfortunately, when I moved it to my in-box it got lost so I
was unable to open the pics and reply − but LL29 is indeed a code (lost
label) I will have used, and reading John (R)'s reply, yes indeed − I bought
a batch of I think 25 seedlings (meristem) of Winter Wonderland "White
fairy" about 1990 − when I was running a very small mail-order operation
selling Thailand Vandas, and I wanted to expand a bit. I got them from a guy
with a Scottish name I think, in Hawaii, who was moving his nursery up the
mountain or down the mountain or something − which is what they do out there
in order to grow a different temperature loving range of plants. I found
them virtually impossible to sell ; no one knew what it was, and my prose
didn't sell them, so I grew them myself ; later I found that I could easily
get five times my original asking price showing one in flower − and I sold a
lot that way, taking them on one-way trips to shows .

BTW I have not yet seen the pictures, maybe Tricia or someone can copy the
lost mail to me complete with attachments ?

Assuming the identification is correct ,I have it in flower at the moment -
it is a plant which loved hydroponics ( I say loved, since I grew it that
way for many years, but not at the moment ) and rapidly increased − easily
reproducing from old back-bulbs too. 8cm is small − my best flower is 14cm.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

Hi Tony, [From Perth Australia, see, I did remember, ha.]

Tell me matey, is that 'Hammer Orchid' growing on your plot, in a pot, or whatever???

When I first saw your photo, I immediately rushed to get my 'Hoffman & Brown' out of its holster, no not a 'Smith & Wesson' folks but a very good illustrated book on the orchids of South-West Australia.

So, Tony, is it Drakaea glyptodon?? Glyptodon meaning, having fluted or grooved teeth. Can't see any resemblance, can you?

Cheers Mate,

Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

Hi again Tony,

I just remembered that my 'Hoffman & Brown' had a few pieces of paper put in some pages. It was my friend who put them there back in 1985, and one of the 'species' Drakaea has a suggested name, and it looks very much like yours.

How about Drakaea thynniphila, or thymiphila.

Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roy Lee
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] In flower now.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

Roger, the pics are taken with digital camera but I do have them on good old film. It will be interesting to see what they are like. The Aerides cultureis quite simple. I pot them in an open, coarse pine bark only, 15mm + in size. They hang up about 2ft from the roof. The temp ranges from 8c − 35c. They are watered daily in the heat, twice a week in the cold. Feeding every 2nd watering in hot weather, monthly in cold. 60% shade all year. Thats it. You may remember the Aer. lawrenciae v Sanderiana I posted earlier this year, well it is now well over 1 meter or around 40 inches tall from the top of the pot and still growing strong.

Roger Grier wrote:

> Hello Roy,
>
> I bet you are really chuffed at the two Aerides, and they look so well.
> It may just get me interested enough to look out for them next Spring.
> Some cultural advice would be good to share.
>
> Why is it that when we look at the flowers of 'Krabiense' the centre of
> the flower has that certain strange hue about it. It has never been
> that clever to photograph either? Maybe a sort of reflective make-up??

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Zygopetalums.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

And a very good day to you all,

I dare say that Dennis, Geoff and I are battening down the hatches, as seventy mile an hour winds are forecast. Still we have had such a calm spell of weather.

Where was I..........ah yes, Zygos.

Aint Mother Nature wonderful. I was beginning to think that my 'just ordinary' Zygo had no perfume, and it's been out for a couple of weeks. But just this morning it put forth a most delightful scent, not strong, but so nice.

So why not have a closer look at this beauty.

I have always been fascinated by Mother Nature and have lived close to her all of my life. So have a look at the three photos.

What has always interested me is the top part of the lip. It's almost like a stockade built of vertical posts, and inside is bowl shaped. The top of the 'posts' turn inwards in a fluted fashion, and what about the sharp 'ears' at the back left and right hand. Maybe all to do with attracting a pollinator.

I can honestly imagine myself as an insect having a nose around and coming upon those vertical posts. "Mmmm wonder what's up there? Looks interesting, I will have a closer look, grooves go over the top, mmmm, wonder what there is to offer, woops! what's that stuck to my head?"

As I always say, "Aint Nature wonderful".

Regards, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony Watkinson
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

Hi Rocky

You are right the first time. Drakaea glyptodon (king in his carriage) It belongs to a friend of mine who took it from somebody's farm and grows it in a pot as you can see from the pic.

Your Hoffman and Brown is almost as good as it gets these days in the way of books on orchids of this area. I hear that they are updating it.

As for the flute or grooved teeth, I am with you. They all look the same to me!!

Tony

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony Watkinson
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007

I included a picture of the Hammer Orchid in an article I wrote for the current issue of the AOS magazine 'Orchids'. I'm not sure how many of you get that one but if you would like to see it, I can send it to you as a pdf file. But it is nearly one mb in size.

Tony

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: tony garthwaite
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Name that Orchid
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Many thanks to John and Geoff, for naming my orchid.
I see it is a very popular orchid when entering the name into a search
engine.
Well Geoff, when we last met, you told me I needed to feed my orchids
more. 14 cm across eh? I'm still starving them by the sound of it!!
I do like your "LL" for lost labels. My wife writes "It'll come to me"
on ours!!

Tony G

"John J. Rupp" wrote on Friday, November 30:

> Hi Tony,
>
> Your white orchid flower is Degarmoara Winter Wonderland 'White Fairy'
> Mine is blooming right now as well and I am attaching a picture of
> mine. It is indeed a delightful and regular blooming orchid.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Non-photogenic!!!!!
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Hi Geoff,

Non-photogenic..........man, where is your marbles? Maybe that gale force wind shook them up a bit.

I'll go with you about being not the type of thing that would be practical for the money boys to mass produce, but non-photogenic, cobblers. Have another look at Tony's first photo, and then see if you can find any other good photos of this charming and so interesting orchid. It has much going for it.

If you ever get to lay out flat on the ground in a bog in the New Forest, looking at either the Bog Orchid, or a very special Early Marsh orchid, or one of the three species of Sundew, then I will stamp your 'visitors' visa, ha, ha.

Regards, Rocky.

Geoffrey Hands wrote on Saturday, December 01:

> I looked at your picture. I can see why the Dutch factories are not into
> mass producing hammer orchids − and it is possible to speculate that if
> all orchids were as non-photogenic as this, there would be no
> conservation problem − but then, we (orchid growers) wouldn't care much
> either way − but then we wouldn't be orchid growers anyway. The
> moral/ethical consequences of this make my mind reel − its too early in
> the day .

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alex
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Name that Orchid
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

What is the parentage of Degarmoara Winter Wonderland 'White Fairy'
I wonder? it looks as if it is pretty complicated
Regards
Alex Scott

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Non-photogenic!!!!!
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Confucius say − beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Geoff

Roger Grier 02 December 2007:

> Hi Geoff,

> Non-photogenic..........man, where is your marbles? Maybe that gale force
> wind shook them up a bit.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Hi Rocky,
some nice ones in Jay Pfahl's encycopedia at − http://www.orchidspecies.com/drakgloptdon.htm
Cheers
John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John J. Rupp
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Name that Orchid
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Dgmra Winter Wonderland 'White Fairy' is (Miltassia Cartagena x Odm.
Gledhow)

John R

Alex wrote:
> What is the parentage of Degarmoara Winter Wonderland 'White Fairy'
> I wonder? it looks as if it is pretty complicated

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony Watkinson
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Hammer Orchid.
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007

Even more pix here

Tony

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eemntee/Drakaea1.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: jns tropic
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: Species that are not photogenic
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Confucius say , beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Geoff

I think some people need glasses. I am sure that if some of these strange orchids were called tulips the orchid growers would dismiss them in a minute. I want to grow plants that have beauty for me, as well as people that don't know there orchids. Maybe the hammer thing could be eaten then I might look again. But for now it doesn't move me.
jns

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Would you believe it !!!
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Rocky
Your subject line (or Peter's?) sounds like one of Victor Meldrew's! But I digress!

A few weeks (months?) back I helped a local amateur orchid grower by repairing her automatic fine-mist-spray system. The fault was simply that the nozzle valve, consisting of a brass screwed thimble, holding in place a solid cylinder of plastic in a brass tube and around which the water was forced prior to being ejected through the central spray nozzle orifice of the thimble, was bunged up with agreen algae.

All of the 'from-the-mains' plumbing is with opaque black polyethylene pipe and the only light source, as far as I could work out, is the spray orifice itself! Virtually a pin-hole.

Of course, it could be that unicellular algae actually travel from the reservoir, surviving any filtration, fluoridisation, UV or what-have-you, simply to accumulate as they back up before the fine spray orifice.

However, 'gunge' isn't peculiar to transparent pots and more than enough light penetrates the substrate contents of black pots too. Certainly enough to assist root tips to get green!

I've always been amazed at just how much light is present in dark places since I used to load 35mm film into cassettes in the wardrobe. After ten minutes I could read the labels on the cassettes! (but the film never fogged . . visibly. I eventually developed a reflex of closing my eyes as I loaded the film.)

John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Non-photogenic!!!!!
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Hi Geoff,
Rocky's suggestion has interesting implicatons; lying flat out on an acid bog could be your answer to immortality. In a few thousand years you'd be well pickled, dug up and displayed alongside Tollund Man . . . . assuming, of course there are any descendents left to visit museums by then. You could have a bog orchid in one hand and an early marsh in the other then future archaeologists would know how and why you were terminated.
Cheers
John

Roger Grier wrote on Sunday, December 02:

> Hi Geoff,

> If you ever get to lay out flat on the ground in a bog in the New Forest,
> looking at either the Bog Orchid, or a very special Early Marsh orchid,
> or one of the three species of Sundew, then I will stamp your 'visitors'
> visa, ha, ha.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Non-photogenic!!!!!
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Mornin' John and all,

Loved your humorous reply John, and I must admit that they do not look attractive to some people..........as I have said before, it's me that has lived so close to nature, but then maybe I see things not only in a different light as is said, but I see why 'Mother Nature' fashioned them this way.

Lovely morning here Dennis..........what have you got in store for us??

Regards, Rocky.

John Stanley wrote on Monday, December 03:

> Hi Geoff, Rocky's suggestion has interesting implicatons; lying flat
> out on an acid bog could be your answer to immortality. In a few
> thousand years you'd be well pickled, dug up and displayed alongside
> Tollund Man . . . . assuming, of course there are any descendents left
> to visit museums by then. You could have a bog orchid in one hand and
> an early marsh in the other then future archaeologists would know how
> and why you were terminated.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Species that are not photogenic
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Hello 'Tropic',

My reply is on a definite humorous note.

'Eaten', eaten,.........and then you say it doesn't move me........I'll bloody well move you you rascal.

Bugger off into the Everglade and look for the Ghost Orchid.

Have a nice day 'Tropic'.

Regards, Rocky.

jns tropic wrote on Monday, December 03:

>> Confucius say − beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Geoff

> I think some people need glasses. I am sure that if some of these strange
> orchids were called tulips the orchid growers would dismiss them in a
> minute. I want to grow plants that have beauty for me, as well as
> people that don't know there orchids. Maybe the hammer thing could be
> eaten then I might look again. But for now it doesn't move me. jns

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nathaniel Green
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Aren't orchids strange things
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Hi,

I have had a Zygo lusiodorf now in bud for two weeks and a paphiopedilum as
well (probably been in bud longer for this one) and both are very slowly
starting to burst into flower, compared to the little Calimaro which can't
keep its buds shut long enough, it bursts open every day or two.

Nat

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dennis Read
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Non-photogenic!!!!!
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

Today we have had high winds -70mph, torrential rain witha few sunny breaks but I happily put up with it as the people and pace of life more than compensate.
Regards from a laid back Devon. Dennis

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: A very good publication for those interested in really beautiful tropical orchids.....
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

My copy of the Orchidstudium Encyclopaedia Fotografica de Orquideas
Brasilieiras , Vol 1 has just arrived. This lists 250 Brazilian species,
with synonyms, information about areas where found ( with descriptions of
climatic zones corresponding to areas ) , more than 2100 large photos of the
species, plus thumbnails of 650 further species and also photos of 430
non-Brazilian species frequently found in cultivation in Brazil.

I was rather surprised at the non-Brazilian ones included, although I expect
it helps them sell the work ( it's a CD by the way , or probably DVD ,
anyway it's a disk I shove in the PC and explore.) but in practice it adds
to the value , in some cases I don't know where to look to find such good
pics. And a DVD is so much less work than a hefty volume, apart from taking
space on my groaning book-shelves ( must think about throwing those Noddy
books , don't read them much these days (joke)..

I saw it advertised , or mentioned, in Orchid Digest , but you are tired of
me banging on about how good that is. In this case , in that case , go to
www.orchidstudium.com and see for yourself ( click first on English , then
on Projects.)

The disc costs $50 (US) including postage , and with the dirt cheap dollar
sets you back a little over £20 , buy yourself a Christmas present , and
help finance Vol 2 at one and the same time. You can use Paypal.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alex
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Name that Orchid
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007

thanks John.
Regards
Alex Scott

"John J. Rupp" wrote on Sunday, December 02:

> Dgmra Winter Wonderland 'White Fairy' is (Miltassia Cartagena x Odm.
> Gledhow)

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re; a possible lead balloon?
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hi everyone,
I wonder if anyone knows the current status or nomenclatural fate of Aerides cylindricum Lindley (non Hooker 1857)

The reason I'd like to know is that Hooker's species A.cylindricum, eventually became Papilionanthe (Aerides) vandarum because the original specific name was the same as an even earlier Lindley species (in other words, they were homonyms and Hooker's was the junior one that had to go).

I'm not enough of a taxonomist to know what would have happened had Lindley's Aerides cylindricum been discovered to have fallen foul of taxonomic rules as well.(would Hooker's have been reinstated? I guess that would upset a few folks if it were to happen now!)

If anyone has come across Aerides cylindricum Lindley or can throw some light on the nomenclatural issue then I'd be most grateful.

John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: jns tropic
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Species that are not photogenic
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Rocky you mentioned an orchid that I would like to have an affair with, the Ghost Orchid. Some of my friends grow it very well. I like it best growing in the Everglades. Since the Ghost and I are friends I never use her Latin names that are always changing. If you saw one in the glades you would never look back at a Bow Bells (I think your old enough to remember Bow).
jns
I forgot to plug my site. I have a new page of pictures from the Kampong, the private home of David Fairchild. Just go to: http://togofcoralgables.com/thekampong.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: francis quesada pallares
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re; a possible lead balloon?
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hi John,

I am not sure how to look up for names, so what I use
the Kew link to the monocot list.

If you google it by punching in Kew ePIC, you will
come to the electronic Plant Information Centre. Then
search ePIC. Type in the name you're looking for and
search it. If your plant is not listed, then use part
of the name and the * as a wild card.

Aerides cylindricum is not listed, but Aer. cylindrica
has two entries on the monocot list. One is Hook. the
other is Lindl.

Both names are not valid anymore. Hook. is now
papilionanthe vandarum (Rchb.f.) Garay, whilst Lindl.
is now papilionanthe subulata (Willd.) Garay.

Hope this helps with future queries,

Francis.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Species that are not photogenic
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hello 'Tropic',

Yes, I agree with you that the Ghost Orchid must be something to really see, especially if the person actually sees it in the Everglades. When I see the countless good photos of it, I always think that I am looking at a frog which has just leapt away from me. The shape is another of 'Mother Natures' goodies.

Regards, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Would you believe it !!!
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

If it were someone I don't know I would have been sceptical of the algae
identification ( sorry ,you people I don't know − it's either cynicism or
my professional training about giving weight to the evidence according to
the credibility of the witness) and as it is I'll have to believe it. But
you have given the answer yourself John, " more than enough light penetrates
the substrate contents of black pots" or at least the orchid is programmed
to think that there will be ( more likely ?) .

I'd like to talk more about this green root tip business, but every time I
start writing something I have to say to myself − hold on , is that right ?
So I'll delay until after my next walk past an epiphytic fern in the forest
here , and my I next inspection of plants at a good garden Centre. I'll come
back to this.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Epiophytic ferns.
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hi there Geoff,

Batten down the hatches again!!!!!

Epiphytic ferns, something that I have always had an interest in, but never put that much time to them. I do know where some grow in great swathes along the branches of Oak trees, and one day I must take some photos, especially some quite close up.

Do you have details about the correct botanical names etc.

Regards, Rodge.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me where I might be able to buy Chilschista lunifera from any of the E.U. [Cites free] orchid nurseries. Of course I will not be buying it until next Spring.

Also any other 'Leafless orchid types'.

Regards, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Would you believe it !!!
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007

Hi Geoff,
As soon as I'd pressed the 'send' button I realised the significance of chlorophyll utilising light as opposed to chlorophyll forming only in light places. After all. germinating seeds seem pre-programmed to produce it and cotyledons appear ready to photosynthesise. 'fraid my plant physiology is a bit rusty now . . bit like my own.

I suppose there is a difference with algae since each unicell (if we're talking about unicellular ones) is a plant in its own right (unless its a blue-green in which case it isn't a plant although it still photosynthesises)).

However, plants deprived of light lose at least some chlorophyll and so I imagine there is a relationship between light and chlorophyll and no-light and no-chlorophyll.

At this point I think we'd all better retire to the www.fountofinfinitewisdomandgospeltruth and pick up the thread when we've made discoveries! Maybe even go back to a book!

I'm not sure which algal ID you're sceptical about Geoff; that bunging up the mister or that 'gunging' up plant pots. I can assure you that the mister was bunged up with green unicelluar algae and not cyanobacteria. What bungs up plantpots is a matter between the orchids, the substrate ('compost' if you must) and the owner!

Reading about root tips and chlorophyll promises to improve Christmas no end. Let's pick up the thread after eh?

'appy Christmas Geoff
John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Would you believe it !!!
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007

Since I shall be spending the day near to Timbuktu ( they call it
Tombouctou) I expect algae to be in pretty short supply. !

But I 'll think of you all as I sit beneath my palm tree , with a handful of
dates and a glass of fermented grape juice ( that's OK you see , as long as
you don't use the A word) watching the dusky maidens gyrate.

Algae can wait 'til the new year.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Would you believe it !!!
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007

Fine Geoff,
We'll wish you a green New Year then. Don't get too enthusistic about gyrating or we'll be watching you in the next round of 'Strictly Come Dancing'! I believe the Argentine Tango does wonders for the coordination and joints.
John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007

Hi Rocky
Can't recall, without a four metre expedition to the greenhouse, which species we got from Peter Williams but you might do worse than talk to him (he might pick your interest up from this forum unless, like Geoff, he's into the gyrating season!)
Cheers
John

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007

Mornin' John,

Thanks for that. Is that the Peter Williams living out east somewhere???

I used to grow it very well, and can't wait to get some more of them as I now know that i will be able to keep them even longer.....because of what I have seen and learnt.

Might just make it to the Post Office today with the little box of stones for you to analyse.

Regards, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: PG Hieke
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Query
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007

Hi Rocky,
The FIFTY seed pots have nothing to do with strength of the sun or daylight.
I have never had this before. The very same plant, hanging in exactly the same
spot is always blooming profusely, but about 50 seed pots I have never had.
It must be a certain insect that was very busy there. There are many possibilities.
Bees, ants, moths and possibly hummingbirds. I just don't know.
Kind regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

Roger Grier wrote on Thursday, November 29:

> Hi Peter,

> As I think it was Geoff who said something about where we live on this
> planet of ours, and the difference in daylight, strength of the sun and
> so on, which leads me on to your FIFTY seed pods.....wow!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Bulbophyllum roxburghii
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007

I stand corrected − Jay Pfahl says it is indeed a Cirrhopetallum − I sent
him one of the pics for his wonderful illustrated Orchid Encyclopaedia
which I expect everyone knows.

geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007

Hi Rocky,
Peter Williams's business is Mae Tang Orchids and he lives in Thailand for part of the year but returns to Chester (near us) in (I think) April until autumn 08.
He has a website at http://www.theorchidman.com/orchids_for_sale.htm and can be emailed at; peter [at] theorchidman [dot] com (of course, substitute the approppriate characters for the words in square brackets. He gives his address that way to avoid it being read by electronic spam trawlers.)

Tell him how you found him if you wish. I suspect he has a lot of personal contact customers. He also runs orchid tours in the far east for those who haven't already spent their kids' inheritance!

I haven't checked to see if there is a 'sales list' but if you ask, I'm sure he'll try if the genus/species is available.

He is thoroughly reliable and is, in fact, a member of our society Committee (so he must be OK then!).

Haven't looked up C.lunifera but have grown (and eventually killed off) C.usnoides and have a replacement from Peter. Formerly, we had C.????? with a specific name I can't now find but which implied fragrance.

Jay Pfahl's Orchid Encyclopedia (which you must know (?) illustrates and describes several at http://www.orchidspecies.com/indexcattleyo.htm (ref to cattleya merely telling you you are the section of C beginning cattleya!).

Hope this is all useful and will keep you out of mischief over the festive season.
Cheers
John

Roger Grier wrote on Thursday, December 06:

> Mornin' John,

> Thanks for that. Is that the Peter Williams living out east somewhere???

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tricia Garner
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Mae Tang Orchids is listed in the Nurseries section of the Orchid-Talk
website:
www.orchid-talk.co.uk/links/nurseries.html

--

Tricia

If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would get done.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Some pics ; number 1.
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Epidendrum lopezii − it must have been prettier than this once for me to
have bought it − but I thought all the hammer orchid droolers would love it.
Usually flowers with a big head of 30 ? 50 ? more -probably − flowers on a 3
foot cane; but this time it's made a 6 inch cane ! Even so , the spike is
busy producing branches, further back ! Individual flowers not large -
petals maybe 12-15mm long for example.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Some pics
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Just a comment and apology first ; I tried to send an e-mail with 5 pics.
That original message with the five pics displayed created problems ,
metaphorically it stuck in the letter box, because it was too big , well
over 2Mb.

I have, a few minutes ago , resent the message with just the first of the
five displayed − Epi lopezii . This time I looked, and yes it was 800kb ,
but here I am apparently sending the other four all included in a much
smaller message ; the mysteries of JPG compression, it seems. My apologies
to Tricia for causing problems. I'll try and remember and not do it again.

As to the four now sent , above . One is a Harella species ; don't get too
excited , the picture you see is bigger than the flower I see ( about 2cm)
but then the whole plant , complete with a flower and several buds, measures
hardly more than the size of a matchbox . ( are there match boxes now ? I
haven't seen one for many years. )

Two pictures of what I had labelled as Bulbophyllum roxburghii . I don't
know why this is a Bulbo , and not a Cirrhopetalum , I think of all these
'daisy-flowered' bulbs as cirrhos , but the botanical distinction is
somewhere else I think , maybe in the way the sometimes articulated lip is
hinged ? However , in what was a later message but is now an earlier one, I
have foun d that I have it wrongly labelled, and yes indeed it is a
Cirrhopetallum.

Again, not quite a giant , the complete flower head would be covered by a UK
5p coin or a US quarter . You need pics like this or a magnifying glass to
enjoy its beauty ( to my eyes). Grows like a weed , lovely ! My small
piece, despite its minute dimensions, is in a fair way to covering a ½ seed
tray ( 8 x 6 inches at a guess , although my enthusiasm is checked a little
by the illustration of a plant in Jay's ’cyclopaedia with far, far more ,
but flowers nowhere near as good as mine , tell me if you think I'm wrong.
My plant had maybe 7 flower spikes a few months ago ; this is either the
rearguard or the vanguard of the next flush.

Mtssa Peggy Ruth Carpenter. I have grown several different clones of this
grex, sometimes with varietal names, over the last decades, most have been
mimps ( a term popular in former days for plants which don't seem to want
to grow well whatever you do for them , as used by Bowles and Robinson for
instance , perhaps by Gertrude Jekyll too , who knows , although she did
claim that absolutely everything grew well for her ; she must have a rather
limited plant collection to make such a claim I think )

But this particular Peggy RC seems to be different , or perhaps I am for the
first time providing what it really wants? I call it cv Koekenhoff , ’cos
that's where I bought it ( or if having a senior moment , call it Dutch
Garden or something else as a work-around , until that section of what
passes for my brain decides to work again) ) no doubt meristemmed a few
miles down the road in the Westland. It has grown in a couple of years from
2 leads with 3 spikes between them, to the five leads or maybe 6 with 8 or
so spikes this year. 19 flowers open, and I can count 23 buds. Difficult to
show you the whole plant , this selection is much better. Big flat flowers,
lasting well.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Chiloschista lunifera.
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Good morning John,

And what a pleasant one it is down here..........for a while at any rate !!!

Thanks for all of the information John. I do remember Peter from years ago, and can remember talking to him a couple of times when he was at.....was it Newbury when Terry and Eddie were there.....memory !!!

Now then John, the parcel of the rock chippings will be on its way later today, so, as our resident 'Rockologist as I dub you, can I please ask you to analyse them and tell me what exactly they are, also all the other interested people will know. I know they came from South Wales and the product was named 'Cambrian Green'. I can see where the 'green' came from as they are a sort of green when wet, but the word 'Cambrian' is more in your domain. I did look up the meaning on the Internet but got bogged down with jargon. No doubt you will explain it in such a way that a mere common New Forest mush will be able to understand !!!!!

Regards, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Grier
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Rubbing salt into the wounds.
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Mornin' Peter,

Bees, ants, moths.....yes we have them also. But HUMMINGBIRDS.....YOU SURE KNOW HOW TO MAKE ENEMIES, ha, ha.

I bet that to actually see them around your orchids must be fantastic.

Thinks: "I wonder what else Peter will come up with to make me envious".

Cheers Peter, Rocky.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony Watkinson
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: Bulbophyllum roxburghii
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Peter O'Byrne of Singapore explained why Cirropetalum was an invalid name in
an Orchid Guide posting in February this year. It's worth a look so here it
is....

K Barrett asked:

"I understand Cirropetalums have been moved back to Bulbophyllum. Is
that so? And who was the taxonomic authority who moved them and how
accepted was the change? The reason I ask is because I have Sigreist's
book, ....."

Kathy,

I hope you're not hoping to trigger-off a flame-session, because
questions like this can lead to vitriolic arguments.

The answer to your Q is that no taxonomic authority moved
Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum. The transfer isn't necessary.

You asked the wrong question. In my opinion, you would have done
better to question the taxonomic authority of those who tried to
separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum in the first place. And
therein lies a long and convoluted story. I'll try to shorten it.

Both Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalum are very old names; Bulbophyllum
was established by Thouars in 1822, Cirrhopetalum by Lindley in 1824.
Initially, it was easy to keep the two genera separate, but as more
and more species were added, it became clear that separation could not
be maintained, and the two genera were merged. At this point,
Cirrhopetalum (being the younger name) was reduced either to a synonym
of Bulbophyllum, or (more usually) to a section inside Bulbophyllum,
or (sometimes) to a subgenus under Bulbophyllum.

There have been repeated attempts to re-establish Cirrhopetalum as a
genus. They have all failed in the long run. In some highly
authoritative cases (like Rudolph Schlechter), the author(s) initially
treated Cirrhopetalum as a genus, but as they became more familiar
with the range of species that need to be taken into consideration,
reluctantly abandoned the concept of a "genus" Cirrhopetalum and
switched to using Bulbophyllum instead. For a long, long time the
consensus amongst knowledgable orchidologists has been that you cannot
separate Cirrhopetalum from Bulbophyllum on the basis of morphological
characters.

In 1994, Garay, Siegerist et al attempted (yet another) division of
the Bulbophyllinae, based upon purely morphological characters.
Amongst other proposals, they resurrected Cirrhopetalum as a genus,
and created several minor genera such as Mastigion. I was not
impressed by their arguments (don't ask ... my reasons are very
lengthy) and I decided that it was more accurate to stick to the
old-fashioned concept of Bulbophyllum. 13 years later on, I'm certain
I made the correct decision. There is a clear consensus amongst recent
authors ... how many use Mastigion, Rhytionanthos, etc ? And how many
use Bulbophyllum ?

So my answer to your question is that no taxonomic authority has moved
Cirrhopetalum back to Bulbophyllum, because they were never
satisfactorially separated in the first place.

Peter O'Byrne

Geoffrey Hands wrote on Friday, December 07:

> I stand corrected − Jay Pfahl says it is indeed a Cirrhopetallum − I sent
> him one of the pics for his wonderful illustrated Orchid Encyclopaedia
> which I expect everyone knows.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tony Watkinson
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: Bulbophyllum roxburghii
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

I remember asking Peter O'Byrne why Cirropetalums should all be called Bulbophyllums and he did give me a quite lucid answer that I can no longer lay my hands on. (Old age)

But from memory, it was to do with the fact that Cirro's have the lateral sepals fused together but Bulbos don't. The problem arose when some Cirro/Bulbos had some flowers with fused LS and some not. The two supposed genera are obviously so closely related that it made sense to include them all in Bulbo.

I am sure he made more sense of it than I have.

Tony

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Bulbophyllum roxburghii
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

I am certainly not going to argue taxonomics ; but horticulturally it makes
a great deal of sense to consider all of the daisy flowered ones as
Cirrhopetallums.

I would think that all the rest are grown so little that there is no
particular point in further division. Whilst there may be a fair number of a
few of the larger flowered species about ( lobbii group for example) I
usually find that when I show any of the others, the comments I get are
universally "never seen that before" " never heard of that" etc...

BTW Jay relies on Missouri Botanical Gardens W3Tropicos Database.

Geoff

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Rubbing salt into the wounds.
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007

Two metre long snakes?
John

Roger Grier wrote on Friday, December 07:

> ...Thinks: "I wonder what else Peter will come up with to make me envious".

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk List
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Bulbophyllum roxburghii
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007

Geoff,
Most will take the point about the value of taxonomic divisions in your
particular context but I am sure you wouldn't wish to imply that there are
no other reasons for getting taxonomy right!
Cheers
John

Top

Archive Index
Archive Index


©Orchid-Talk
email.gif - 2501 bytes