I just want to know how this could bee ]]>
EPIDENDRA, the botanical databases of Jardin Botanico Lankester
Lankaster Botanical Garden of Costa Rica
National Collection of Restrepia Orchids
National Collection of Restrepia Orchids
Index Dick Hartley's Stanhopea site
www.phragweb.info
Rob Zuiderwijk's site for phrag species and hybrids
RBO - Reproductive Biology of Orchids
Reproductive Biology of Orchids click the image database
which covers 2335 species in 434 genera
OrchidWire - Connecting a World of Orchids
connecting a world of orchids ]]>
Has anyone purchased any of Yoshitaka Tanaka's books on Orchids of Myanmar, Vols. 1, 2, and 3? And if so, your opinion (pro OR con) would be appreciated. The purpose for this question is my seemingly eternal quest for information regarding Bulbophyllums. I'm interested in extending my meager collection of 'real information' not "coffee table" books. Many thanks for any opinions. ]]>
Nature preserve on high alert status - The Boston Globe ]]>
Just curious whether or not anyone has experience with the different symptoms seen as a result of nutrient deficiency in orchids. I know it's quite rare, and many symptoms are shared amongst lots of things
I stumbled upon an article that seems to do some of these studies, and they mention that orchids typically respond slowly to deficiencies, mainly because they are highly efficient at mobilizing nutrients from other/older parts of the plant (in other words, self cannibalism!) However, they don't list observable symptoms
I water with RO water which is quite pure. From basic chemistry, it seems that not only is this water missing some basic nutrients, but it could also be leaching out nutrients from the media. I was using MSU's RO water fertilizer, but a few months ago I spilled some water into the fertilizer bottle and everything ended up clumping together, so I had to chuck the whole thing out. As a result, I haven't been fertilizing for a while, and I'm starting to notice some funny things happen with my plants. ]]>
Does anyone know if this cross has a registered name:
(Paph. Jolly Roger x Paph Cyberspace) x (Paph. Black Flame x Paph Voodoo Magic)?
I just bought this one from Hausermann's today. I bought it for its dark color and the fact that it has two buds on the same spike. I had never seen that before on a paph. If anyone can ID, that would be great.
Thanks,
John ]]>
I have a beautiful paph. which is currently spiking. A plant tag is in the pot and I was hoping someone could help me make sense of it. I will type exactly what it says below:
Paph. Raisin Pie 'Hsinying') x Sib
(Paph. Supersuk 'Eureka' AM/AOS x
There are also letters are in a different font and may be printed directly on the tag that say "NNPV" along the top of the tag.
Is this an un-named hybrid of Raisin Pie and Supersuk?
Thanks,
John ]]>
I recently getting started growing orchids again, and am finding myself fascinated by 1) fragrant orchids, 2) small-growing orchids, and 3) the parentage and development of new orchid crosses (these are not in any particular order...).
I am wondering if Phalaenopsis and Sedirea can be interbred, and if so, what is the new generic name? Has anyone seen any of these, if they do exist? and do they retain their fragrance from either parent?
Looking forward to your wisdom...,
David ]]>
I was at Wegmans grocery tonight and stumbled across a whole new display of small phals (brother spring dancer) I noticed one in particular that stood out. Although the blooms are not quite fully opened, every flower appears to have one collumn but 3 labellum. The bottom labellum is very distinguished and instead of having 2 petals they are kind of a labellum/petal morph.
Maybe I am just coming across something common, but I have never seen this in person and the other phals were what I would call average.I wish I could post a picture but they are not fully blooming yet. when they open I will try to post a pic. ]]>
I've read one where it says to pinch off the new growth but im not sure that works.
I would also like to know how to get the plants to branch off, somewhat like topping a plant so instead of one growth point, you get two.
Is this possible with orchids or am i dreaming like a fool?
Thanks, Aaron. ]]>
I will now try to attach the photo. Forgive me if it doesn't work. I'm a complete newbie to Orchid Board.
Orchidbingo
Was he having a loan of me or is this a fact?
Baz ]]>
If so what kinds?
Thank you. ]]>
There is a great sticky at the top of this forum section that discusses different viewpoints of the change. Some like it, some oppose it. It's a great thread and reads like an article. But, I'm not asking your opinion here. I just want to know what you all are doing? I know many never changed when they moved many Laelias into Sophronitis. Will you just resist, change tags, or what? ]]>
http://www.ssbg.asu.ru/turcz/turcz1_08.pdf ]]>
I am trying to prepare a Booster Powder with NPK 0-52-31
using the following fertlizer salts:-
Mono Potassium Phosphate
Mono Ammonium Phospahe
SuperPhosphate
Thiamnine B1
How would I calculate the amount of the salts mentioned above to use to
form the above NPK.
I believe that this will strengthen the stems and increase flowering of
Orchids.
Would appreciate the calculation formula and also the amount to use.
Thank you. ]]>
I ask the question because I'm reviewing for a final exam, and the subject came up. My plants are sitting in the balcony, and I just thought about them. :biggrin: ]]>
anyway,
-J ]]>
Specifically australia, i know thats hard for most of you in the US o' A!
thanks heaps
-J ]]>
I wish we all could experience this!!
This video is amazing!
YouTube - Darwins Comet Orchid ]]>
For the sake of observation, I cut a hole in one of them. It immediately collapsed around the buds. In cutting it away after that, I noticed that the material of the deflated sheath was not dry or stiff. It was moist under the outer surface and very flexible.
I have never noticed any inflated Cattleya sheaths before and have never heard of them either. I did a lot of searching on the internet without finding a single reference to this phenomenon. So I’m making up my own theories for now. I’d say the protective properties of an inflated sheath are obvious enough, and can possibly understand a greater need to pump up an older sheath than a young one.
What I don’t understand at all is how it happens. Mainly, how does a Cattleya blow up its sheaths and maintain air pressure in them?
------
In my understanding, there is no heirloom Cattleya alliance cultivars that lives in present date that dates before the late 1880 decade.
It that info still true?
------
The other question is of personal appreciation, some authors say that heirlooms before 1880 decade are lost because previous that decade orchid growers didn’t have enough experience… I mean they were lost even very soon after the adquisition because of cultural and phitosanitary faults.
Do you think that is 100% true in all cases, or that could be a excuse to not admitting that at least few "previous-1880-cultivars" in some cases actually survived till the XX Century, grow older and die?
-------
The other question is about "plant overall vigor"
In your opinion, do you think that the more old heirlooms actually living still persist their original "vigor"?
Thank’s
Jan ]]>
This is my first post to this board, but I've been reading for a couple months now and learning from all of you. :waving
I'm trying to find out if Encyclia phoenicia is a current name or if it's a synonym? And if it's a current name, does it have any synonyms? I've been searching, but I'm not finding much information on it.
Thanks!
Joan ]]>
:) Have fun reading
ORCHID MUSINGS
by Jerry Sellers
Although it is common practice to call them Orchid food, fertilizers are not really food for our Orchids. Using water, carbon dioxide and energy from the sun, Orchids actually make their own food. So fertilizers can best be called Orchid nutrients. Plant nutritionists have identified seventeen (17) elements essential to Orchid growth. Because Orchids require them in larger quantities for maximum growth, Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) are referred to as macro nutrients. The other elements needed in smaller quantities, such as Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu), and Zinc (Z), are referred to as micro nutrients or trace elements.
All commercial Orchid fertilizers are labeled with three numbers, such as 10-20-30. These three numbers are the percentage by weight of the primary nutrient components of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous or phosphates (P) and Potassium or potash (K) in the fertilizer.
Nitrogen is important for leaf and stem growth and provides the rich green color in leaves.
Phosphorous provides for root and flower development.
Potassium helps build Orchid tissue and aids in the production of vital chlorophyll.
A fertilizer is said to be complete when it contains N, P, and K. Fertilizers are said to be balanced when they have the same ratio of N, P, and K. Examples of commonly used Orchid fertilizers ratios are 20-20-20, 30-10-10, and 10-10-10. When comparing fertilizers, one is told to check the ratio of the three numbers to each other. How many times have you heard "20-20-20 is exactly the same as 10-10-10, just use less of it"?. True, each has a ratio of 1 to 1 to 1; However, they are exactly the same in ratio only! As these ratio numbers are percentage expressions of the primary nutrient components, a hobbyist should compute the amount of each fertilizer needed to obtain the ideal concentration of the nutrient. For periodic feedings,150 to 200 parts per million (PPM) of N is excellent. To obtain the desired concentration of Nitrogen, One could use a chart. But the actual calculations are quite easy. The same calculation can be used for obtaining the desired concentration of the other nutrient components. Using the given rule that one ounce of fertilizer dissolved in 100 gallons of water yields 75 (PPM) of fertilizer at delivery. Therefore, to decide how many ounces of 10-10-10 to add to 100 gallons of water to obtain 200 PPM available Nitrogen at delivery, multiply the decimal equivalent of the 10% N component in the formula, 0.10 x 75 PPM = 7.5 PPM; then 200 PPM divided by 7.5 PPM means that 26.7 ounces of the formula would be needed. For the 20-20-20 product, the calculation would be .20 x 75PPM=15 PPM; then 200PPM/15PPM =13.3 ounces. Of course if you use a five gallon bucket of water instead of a 100 gallon bucket, divide the required product by 20 ( 5 gallons is 1/20 of 100), ie 13.3/20 = .665 ounces, or by 100 if you are using a one gallon bucket, which would be 13.3/100=0.133 ounces. If you use a siphoning system, such as 15:1 or 16:1, simply adjust the amount of the fertilizer to 3/4 of the amount calculated for 100 gallons for the concentrate. The concentrate is mixed 1 part concentrate to 15 or 16 parts water, resulting in 75 to 80 gallons of mixed nutrient water at delivery.
So, the actual amounts needed are different depending on which formulation is used. The old "one tablespoon per gallon" recommendation is not really usuable. Now that you have figured out the proper concentration, you need to check the analysis data on the fertilizer container to determine the true available N at delivery. Review the data information, discounting any part of the nitrogen availability that comes from urea. It can take up to a year break down Urea . By that time, the Urea is well out of your potting media, and totally unavailable to your Orchids.. So if urea constitutes 10% of the Nitrogen source in the 20%-20%-20% formula, then 50% of the Nitrogen is unavailable to the plant ( 10/20=50%), so you need to double the amount of fertilizer to get the proper amount of fertilizer to your plant. Which means doubling all the other components. Now we are entering into an area for another article called "nutrient antagonism's". Wherein the excess of one nutrient reduces the uptake of another. As an example too high concentration of Nitrogen has been proven to inhibit an Orchid's ability to absorb and use Potassium (K). The lack of K can be seen in leggy, weak stemmed plants, which lack the strength to hold up their leaves. The easiest way around this dilemma is to use Non urea fertilizers. These Non Urea based fertilizers provide 100% immediately available nitrogen, which the urea based fertilizers do not. We recommend and use Grow More fertilizers.
While looking at the data information on the fertilizer container, look for the micronutrient components. Many of the current Orchid fertilizers do not have any micro nutrients in their formula. The lack of micro nutrients is not a problem for the terrestrial plants, as the micro nutrients can be obtained from the soil. In soilless conditions, in which most Orchids are grown, micronutrient deficiencies can and do become a problem. Again, We recommend and use Grow More fertilizers , which incorporate the vital micro nutrients into their formula. The micro nutrients provide strength for the new growth and support for the flowers
The fertilizer formula should match the potting medium. Use 20-10-20 with coconut chips, tree fern, charcoal, or various inorganic aggregates, but use 30-10-10 (urea based), or 20-10-20 (non urea) with fir bark. For bloom boosting, use 6-30-30 for better blooming. This formula adds more K to provide plant strength to hold up the additional flowers. Many formulae do not provide the needed strength nutrients. You get a better blooming, but the flowers droop.
Slow release fertilizers release nutrients (make them available to the Orchid) over an extended period. Cottonseed meal, blood meal bone meal and fish emulsion are examples of organic fertilizers. These contain relatively low concentrations of actual nutrients and must be used in larger quantities. Most Orchid media can not readily accommodate Slow release fertilizers, because the granules are washed through the potting media before being completely dissolved. They do find some use in fine medias, which prevent the washing through problem.
Remember well, fertilizers are chemical salts, much like the familiar table salt. As a chemical salt, fertilizers will absorb water from their surroundings. Just leave a fertilizer container open for a few days to see this statement in action. So if tender Orchid roots grow close to the fertilizer granules or fertilizer residue, water will be drawn from the roots. The cells in the roots will begin to dehydrate or "bum." Frequent clear water rinses will keep the residue to a minimum. If the clear water rinses, do not wash away the residue, then re potting is in order.
The best rule of thumb is to under fertilize, rather than over fertilize. Orchids in the wild do not get all that much to "eat", and they survive well. ]]>
Flowering season is just a statistical behaviour normally ruled by day length, temperature, and humidity, and the 3 variables mixed with the “genetical” individuality makes flowering times less easy to understand.
First you have to know how individuality behaves, some species actually are individually very precise most of the time and year after year it would flowers at his “calendar date”, other species individuality behaves more erratically, something that means that even if they tend to flower at “calendar date”, it can vary even a month or more from "average" between one year or the other just because of some degree of environmental or cultural "instability".
The other thing are second flowerings, some species actually can eventualy flower a second time in a defined or undefined moment depending the species, other species actually can bloom more than twice in a very ample season.
The third thing to now is that flowering season is a statistical behavior, so when people make judgments about flowering season those judgments could be underestimated because it takes in to acount the majority but by any means all plants, or it could be overestimated because taking to account all plants in more than some cases could means almost mark more than half of the year calendar. Also distributions can be very unlikely, some of them quite compress, others more "flat".
Flowering times also can be imprecise because the vast majority of species, even “clock-works” ones, have more than one flowering season ((“one” for each natural population)), or it can have progressive geographical variations on flowering times ((clines)), or it even can have plants of the same population that have two flowering season ((it means “two peacks” that not implies any second flowerings)). All of these ruled genetically because it repeat itself on cultivation.
Flowering season in many cases is simply extremely overestimated has a “determimistic” way to differentiate species and possible hybrids. Only good knowledge about plant vegetative behaviour, flower and vegetative anatomy plotted with the statistical trend that flowering season actually is, can corroborate if a “suspicious flowering behaviour” actually is a suspicious behavior or not. Thinking that in the vast majority of species "flowering season" is a very well defined time on the year for very near almost 100% of all specimens inside the species actually is not know or at least put aside valuable things about the species the author is talking about. This don't means flowering season alone is not "informative", on the contrary it is very helpful but only if we understand that is statistical and not deterministic...
All this could sound "difficult" but is not, of course not all is applicable to each particular species case. ]]>
Wild Cattleya lueddemanniana from the coastal region between north Caribbean facing slopes of the “Cordillera de la Costa” from North Aragua, Easten Vargas, Tacagua Valley (Capital district) and maybe some parts of Carabobo (at least north eastern Carabobo), are always very Light pink in color, normally the flowers open like “semialbas” just to gain some color with the days. Flower size is between medium to big, and lip patterns even if true complete solid lips are rare events tends to be solid, in fact the “average” lip phenotype is small to medium solid spots, the later but surrounded by “splinkle” tiny compact dots, or the later without the solid part.
Lueddemanniana from the coastal region thrives in small gallery forests (evergreen forest surrounded by rivers), semi-deciduous and deciduous forests, and also in xerophytic Thorny bushes. It can grow medium to small trees, but sometimes it can be found in cliffs. This coastal colonies grows between sea level all the way up to 900 meters over sea level and the flowering season can occur between July and January. This Biotype is the less represented biotype on cultivation except from “coerulea” clones that all of them comes from this area, also a good part of amethyst solid lip cultivars are from this area. Coastal lueddemanniana have the tendency to flowers twice a year, something That is much rare in “Larense” lueddemannianas.
Almost all lueddemannianas in cultivation and almost al color forms found on nature are from the “larense” type. Larense Lueddemannianas are possible to find from the north and north-east part of “Aroa” range (Yaracuy), all the way to dispersed from each other colonies in the North mountainous part of Lara province and few even more dispersed colonies at Falcón province. This biotype grows in average even more xerophitic than “coastal” lueddemannianas and can tolerate extreme temperatures in some places with more longer dry season, something that even if is true for many of the colonies, some of them grows in lets says “Moisture Mountainous Oasis”.
“Larense” type lueddemannianas vary a lot depending the colony, some colonies are very similar to “coastal” lueddemannianas in all aspects except that the frontal lip pattern tends to be more open at least in average. Other colonies are quite distinct, it tends to have more smaller flowers, with not so wide segments, more pronounced yellow eyes and more dark segments, but actually very dark lueddemannianas are only common on cultivation. Larense lueddemanniana grow between 400 to 900 meters over sea level and it flowers almost always just once per year between November-December all the way to March-April. ]]>
The other color present in G. Aurantiaca is the lip pattern, which is purple. This color pattern is represented by few little “dots” that follows “imaginary” lines between each other, but sometimes the lip is so well spotted that tight “radial” patterns occur. Has I said before spots don’t occur randomly and they are never big, so large random "stains" like in G aurantica “mishima spots” are 100% sure that occurs thanks to artificial back-crossings to aurantica, but since many reputable growers don’t now the species at all, they easily accept man-made complex hybrids with "aurantica" fenotipe has it were true "novel" auranticas.
Also It has been said that aurantiacas with no lip pattern at all or “concolor” are not common but possible to occur and that is true, also “splash” aurantacas are not common, but the later are very randomly seen on cultivation because “splash” auranticas are not collectible items since they only have quite few tiny “dots” on the two petals (quite less than in the labellum) that only a close look would reveal.
The way “auranticas” can vary in color is because of some degree of “alien” genes on wild populations (In this species case via “guatemalensis”). The natural hybrid between skinneri and aurantiaca is quite common in almost half of the aurantica distribution range, and for some genetic reason this hybrid have the ability to produce reds, yellows,whites and salmon colors when is back crossed with aurantiaca.
Since almost all “pure” auranticas from places that guatemalensis occur actually have few alien genes from some guatemalensis back-cross, chances are that even if “pure auranticas” have near 100% “purity level”, sometimes this so-call “pure” aurantiacas would produce some reds, yellows or even white cultivars. This is know not only because we know how guatemalensis behave, but also because in places guatemalensis don’t exist only orange auranticas are possible to be found.
Since in this particular case is normal that few genes from “skinneri” travels to “aurantica”, aurantiaca color variability is recognized has part of the true species because even orange plants could be in some degree "hybrids", and for that reason even red or yellow aurantiacas are recognized has true especies, something that happens ONLY if the shape and flower size are 100% aurantica in phenotype and their offspring still behaves has "aurantica"… all the rest are classified has part of the guatemalensis hybrid “swarm”.
On cultivation “white” aurantiacas are possible to obtain if yellow cultivars are selfed for more than one generation and on “each” step only the more cream colored plants are selfed again. On the other hand “red” behaves quite strange, red selfings not only produce the expected variability between “salmon red”, “brick red”, to “burgundy red”, they also produce various types of yellow, in fact red selfings produces more yellow than red offspring. Maybe on the future if "salmon red" aurantiacas are selfed we would see true "salmon" inside aurantiaca, true salmon is the only color of guatemalensis that have more aurantica genes on it that actually don't have known representatives inside "pure" aurantiacas with few guatemalensis genes on it. ]]>