.jpg)
The pictures that come up for Laeliocattleya Rojo look an awful lot like this (example), and that same page also lists the parentage of Laeliocattleya Rojo as Cattleya aurantiaca x Laelia milleri. So this is supposedly (Cattleya aurantiaca x Laelia milleri) x Cattleya aurantiaca. I get why one might want to recross with one of the parent species, in general, but I'm confused about why one would want to recross in this specific case, since Lc. Rojo is already such a nice-looking plant. And the cross doesn't even appear to have changed much of anything, at least not to my (admittedly inexpert) eyes.
Pretty, though, in any case. I didn't wind up coveting many of the orchids at the show, but this is one I wouldn't mind having, assuming that I could grow it and have it flower and stuff. I think we're still a ways away from that point. But maybe someday.
Having just begun my own hybridizing program---though with daylilies and not orchids---I'm acutely aware of how many traits I need to breed for that aren't visible to anyone who hasn't grown the plant. Vigor, health, ease of culture, insect and disease resistance, season of bloom, repeat bloom, foliage habit---many of these only become issues when you try to grow the plant yourself. I'm sure you know that backcrossing is a technique for encouraging the expression of recessive traits. I don't know what traits the orchid hybridizer might have had in mind, but they might not be obvious on visual inspection.
ReplyDeleteDon
happy crossing - lovely pic.
ReplyDeleteAs Anonymous said there are any number of reasons for doing a backcross. It is possible that it is as simple as the hybridizer hoping for a flower more orange in color. Personally, I much prefer the flower form of L. milleri though I like the shorter flower spike that C. aurantiaca created in the hybrid.
ReplyDeleteFlatter, broader, larger lip? Your pic of the flowers of the backcross does seem to show this... (compare with pics of Lc Rojo)
ReplyDelete