Dumbest hybrid ever made?

[critterguy]

So people normally hybridize to get the best attributes of parents and produce visually superior orchids.

Has anyone out there done a wacky cross as a joke and gotten the predictably awful looking result?

[lotis146]

That's a good question. Hard to imagine there's UGLY flowers out there, but wacky I'm sure, then again I've seen some ugly flowers. That would be awesome if people have pics!

[orchidsarefun]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There have been some photos of phals posted on this forum where I have said yeeeeuuuuch, but others have liked them !

[critterguy]

Yes, very true. But i'm talking of intentionally trying to make something dumb.

For example...lots of Dracuvallia hybrids out there. It'd be really funny to do one using Dracula mopsus as the Dracula half...hahaha

[WhiteRabbit]

Well there are a number of bizarre looking orchids, and people may find them appealing for the bizarre-ness

Raising an orchid from seed to bloom size can take several years, so I don't know if anybody would care to invest the time and effort to
intentionally try to create something with no appeal...

[Fairorchids]

I have seen a number of Paph hybrids, where I can't figure out which features the breeder was trying to combine. Most of them are probably 'they happened to be in bloom at the same time' crosses.

For example, you have two types of multi-floral Paphs, those where all the flowers open more or less simultaneously (such as Rothschildianum), and those which open sequentially (primulinum, etc.). Why anyone would want to mix those two types is beyond me, yet Prime Child (roth x primulinum) and Juergen Roeth (primulinum x kolopakingii) have both been made.

Likewise, there was a breeder a few years ago, who was breeding with Paph hybrids made 75-100 years ago. Since the bulldog types are 10-15 generations further ahead now, I just don't get what his objctive was at that point.

Redoing old crosses is not all crazy though. With line breeding done the last 20-30 years, we have much better species plants available now, so there is some justification for redoing some of primary hybrids with better parents.

In this vein, I have two pods of Paph Arthurianum maturing at the moment (fairrieanum x insigne), one colored and one albescent - both made with superior parents.

[JMNYC]

Originally Posted by orchidsarefun

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There have been some photos of phals posted on this forum where I have said yeeeeuuuuch, but others have liked them !

I was just about to post the same! Bjying the most expensive ilustrated book on orchids way back....every species is depicted, I earned that many species are objective ugly siply because of whaty they evolved to survive/ so in the perfection of their ekvolution, one could say they are not at all ugly.

The romantic part of me, loves Blcs with big blooms flat segments and ruffled lips, and classic Phals with long cascading inflorescences.....but another part of me is drawn to the Paph bulldogs increasingly.

Not conventionally pretty, but overflowing with attitude, elan, personality and moxie.

That this is so subjective....I just adore; we are each unique!

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

Originally Posted by critterguy

Yes, very true. But i'm talking of intentionally trying to make something dumb.

For example...lots of Dracuvallia hybrids out there. It'd be really funny to do one using Dracula mopsus as the Dracula half...hahaha

I saw that movie, it was an epic fail commerciallyl.

[Orchid Whisperer]

In the RHS Orchid Registry, Cattleya velutina x Encyclia cordigera =Catyclia Never Remake This

(I am not making this up)

[My Green Pets]

Photo or it didnt happen

[RJSquirrel]

how about the orchid inn 3 pouched paphs? its not just ugly its nightmarish



its not the ugly in the flower but the ability of man to manipulate nature in a way thats un-natural in every respect.