Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Discussion of what's happening in primary hybrids - results from two species
Post Reply
TxRobNLA
Customer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:43 pm
Location: Canyon Country, Ca
Contact:

Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by TxRobNLA » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:52 am

Since we have a related discussion going about Luedde-violacea, I thought I would post some work I'm doing on related crosses with the goal of producing coeruleas.

In general with coerulea breeding other than nostalgia, there is very little benefit in trying to recreate coerulea version of primaries and near primary hybrids. There is a lot to be learned from previous breeding that can be applied to coeruleas to help provide direction to achieve specific goals, but due to the nature of the complex genetics in coerulea breeding what worked in the past often will not work directly with coeruleas.

But having said that, there are a number of interesting primary and near primary crosses that would be great to have as coeruleas. Luedde-violacea would of course be an interesting primary to have to work with in a coerulea form. You then have to ask what was Luedde-violacea originally and frankly for the purposes of creating a coerulea form do we even care? That all depends on the end goals. If you want to try to match both the saturation and form of the previous hybrids, then you need understand where they really came from and try to reproduce those crosses as closely as possible with coerulea forms. The key problem with this specific line of breeding has been we do not have a coerulea form of pulchra. We do however have a coerulea form of lueddemanniana now. But if we replace pulchra with lueddemanniana we will get very different results. So while it will be interesting to make a true Luedde-violacea in the future, it will not give the intended results.

Chinese breeders have created a coerulea form of Fintje Kunriawati (violacea x pulchra); none of those hybrids have ever made it the US. So we still don't have direct access to them. I've been continuing to try to create a coerulea Fintje Kunriawati on my end, but have not achieved it yet. What I have now been successful at is producing a coerulea form of (Fintje Kunriawati x violacea). I ended up naming that hybrid SDO Royal Dragon when the first ones all bloomed out magenta. I have larger batch of seedlings blooming out this year and couple of them are going to be coerulea. You could argue that this cross is really George Vasquez. Technically it's not and even though we are using pulchra is still probably not reflective of the original Luedde-violacea X violacea.

The cross that would likely have to made to get close to the original and current modern George Vasquez would likely be either [(bellina x pulchra) x violacea] or [(Samera x pulchra) x violacea]. My suspicion is that the hybrid that we think of as Luedde-violacea was really something close to Samera x pulchra. The reality is that the "violacea" used in that cross could have had any amount of line breeding and hybridization between violacea and bellina.

You can be guaranteed if we start switching out bellina, violacea, pulchra and lueddemanniana in these crosses we will start getting very different end results.

So if we go back to the question and goal of how do I create a coerulea form of a specific previous hybrid, the answer is not always very straight forward.

This then starts leading you to ask the question at what point is one of these hybrids a "George Vasquez" or a completely new named hybrid?

If I wanted to create a coerulea Malibu Imp and backtracked and used the species that were really used to create Malibu Imp, is it actually Malibu Imp? of a new hybrid?

From a Taxonomy standpoint, technically we should be correctly naming these hybrids. From a nostalgia standpoint, wouldn't it be great to have a coerulea "Malibu Imp" with the same form and saturation as the original.

Ultimately I have been making the decision to name these things correctly based on current taxonomy. Hopefully someone finds all this interesting. I know I rambled on a bit.

That then brings me back to SDO Royal Dragon (Fintje Kunriawati x violacea).

I'm really excited to be about to bloom some coeruleas from this cross. I'll post both the coerulea and magenta forms as soon as they open. But here are some teaser photo's.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

elpaninaro
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:38 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by elpaninaro » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:54 pm

TxRobNLA wrote:So if we go back to the question and goal of how do I create a coerulea form of a specific previous hybrid, the answer is not always very straight forward.

This then starts leading you to ask the question at what point is one of these hybrids a "George Vasquez" or a completely new named hybrid?

If I wanted to create a coerulea Malibu Imp and backtracked and used the species that were really used to create Malibu Imp, is it actually Malibu Imp? of a new hybrid?

From a Taxonomy standpoint, technically we should be correctly naming these hybrids. From a nostalgia standpoint, wouldn't it be great to have a coerulea "Malibu Imp" with the same form and saturation as the original.

Ultimately I have been making the decision to name these things correctly based on current taxonomy. Hopefully someone finds all this interesting. I know I rambled on a bit.
Very interesting for my part. As I continue my research into the true history of Orchid World, I have grappled with the same questions. Also, for most of the past 15 years my sole focus has been on Paph species- and functioning during that time without any active interaction with the AOS, RHS or any local orchid societies.

Coming back into the fold- and diving into both Phals and miniature Cattleya breeding, I have been astonished at both the degree of taxonomic changes and the lack of discussion as to how those changes should be handled with regards to historic hybridizing. I would also like to see what motivated so many changes and the justification for their acceptance. I am sure that latter information exists- I have just not gotten there yet. But given the intense of study of orchids undertaken over the past 150 years, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask why so many changes in so short a time. Are they truly necessary and right- or is this driven in part by opinion that is subject to future change. Then again- I have been away for a while. This may all have been fully discussed and documented in places I have not yet explored. Even so, the lack of acceptance of these changes in many quarters is troubling.

I have noted that from a hybridizer perspective that many have not adopted the new nomenclature and show no inclinations toward doing so. Not terribly surprising. Despite my absence I imagine that from a political perspective the taxonomists and the commercial hybridizers remain fairly unsympathetic to each other when it comes to a desire to tinker with what already exists.

For my part, I have decided that I am going to proceed with the Orchid World project- and in general- giving the historic hybrid names to crosses when the parentage that was correct at the time is utilized. I imagine the AOS and RHS would not agree with that stance- but I see no other way to do it. There are too many key older crosses out there which set benchmarks and expectations for us as one more link in a chain that is sometimes tens of generations long for me to feel comfortable giving a new hybrid name to something that has a name and history while watching remakes of those old hybrids using 4N and otherwise improved breeding stock give completely different results thus disrupting the value of comparison over time.

Neither approach is a perfect solution, but at least with my approach a best effort is made to preserve the patterns of the past so that we can better predict and evaluate the results of the future.

User avatar
JimL
Customer
Posts: 2750
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:20 am

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by JimL » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:29 pm

If I don't see a flower pic soon I may have a fucking aneurism.

User avatar
WaltonInlet
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:50 pm
Location: Floridana Beach, Florida, USA

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by WaltonInlet » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:15 am

JimL wrote:If I don't see a flower pic soon I may have a fucking aneurism.
Agreed. That bud photo was posted about three days ago. By now, it should be about three days from opening and...POSTING THE PHOTO!!! Hallelujah...we hope.
"Constant use has not worn ragged the fabric of their friendship." 

Dorothy Parker

TxRobNLA
Customer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:43 pm
Location: Canyon Country, Ca
Contact:

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by TxRobNLA » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:45 am

Trust me, I'm right in there with you. I keep pulling it out every day hoping to see that bud starting to crack open.

Here's one of it's standard colored siblings. It's going to be interesting to see if the coerulea keeps this level of saturation or not.

When you look at this flower you tell from it's form that it's [(violacea x pulcherrima) x violacea]. It shows how different the form on these remakes can be depending on what is really in it. I'm eventually going to have to use a really good Samera or just take my chances with a good coerulea bellina to get the form that we usually expect from Luedde-violacea and George Vasquez.

I'm still happy with this flower, but I would like to see better form.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sharky
Customer
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by sharky » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:26 am

Rob: the flower is stunning, great saturation of colour. JimL you're hilarious, I was thinking the same!!!

TxRobNLA
Customer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:43 pm
Location: Canyon Country, Ca
Contact:

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by TxRobNLA » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:19 am

The flower is partially open, enough to see the color. Standard coerulea color. Saturation level is normal. Hard to tell about the form until it opens more.

There is another coerulea seedling in bud that looks like it's either going to be really high saturation or have some dark spots. Should be able to tell what's going on in a couple of days.

Either way it's exciting to finally have a coerulea form of this cross.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sharky
Customer
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by sharky » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:27 am

Congrats Rob!!!!!
Looks great

TxRobNLA
Customer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:43 pm
Location: Canyon Country, Ca
Contact:

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by TxRobNLA » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:45 am

Open all the way, the form definitely is not as good. The coerulea seedling is smaller, so hopefully it will improve when it gets larger. The next coerulea that is in bud looks a lot more saturated. So hopefully I'll get lucky and it will have good form as well. Guess we'll see.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

TxRobNLA
Customer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:43 pm
Location: Canyon Country, Ca
Contact:

Re: Phal SDO Royal Dragon coerulea

Post by TxRobNLA » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:58 pm

Bloomed out a second coerulea. Better color and a little bit better form. I really love crosses like this that have really simple genetics and produce an outcome that is more in line with traditional inheritance models. It's rare to have this happen with coerulea breeding.

The center magenta flower has all three anthocyanin's turned on, that's why it has such a rich almost raspberry color. If one of these blooms with only Anthocyanin's A and B or just one, the color is going to be less saturated and more magenta color.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply

Return to “Primary Hybrids”