Paph curtisii and superbiens - the great debate

I have in bloom a division of a clone of Paph curtisii from California, Paph. curtisii 'Philip'.


I also have in bloom a seedling of Paph superbiens from Matt Gore.



Here are the two side by side


So the debate goes on. They are blooming at the same season, they have VERY similar color patterns and shapes. The only obvious difference is in how the dorsal's lower edge rolls back a touch on the plant labelled superbiens, giving a slightly more open look between the dorsal & the petals than in the curtisii clone. I would be inclined to say these are both the plants of the same species. Which ever name you choose. But I don't know my taxonomy that well. AND there has been a lot of confusion and mixing over the last 150 years that these have been in cultivation. Both plants I believe are seed raise, so the provenance is murky at best.

Back in the 1980's I had bought imported Paph curtisii from Ray Rands. Those plants bloomed quite different from either plant pictured here. And quite different from most images I have seen of curtisii. They had much shorter petals, that stood out more, rather than down. And the color pattern was over all much less brown. I think those were 'true' curtisii. But sadly they did not persist. I was a novice at gowing then and lost them about the time that CITES slammed the door shut on all imports of jungle material. I wish I had known then that those would be impossible to replace, I might have taken better care of them. The lesson is to cherish and preserve any orchid that you think may be of wild origin.

My final thought is, with the note about the curtisii I no longer posess, the both plants above are likely what used to be called superbiens. Now I know Cribb has reduced these to synonmy and called them both curtisii. But I think he did not see the material that Rands had imported in the late 1970;s & early 1980's. If I show either plant, I will let the local judging center call it which ever of the two names they want. It is a confused mess, and it is beyond me to try to straighten it out.

Enjoy the pictures and if anyone has one of those old Rands imports - post a picture please.

I don't know if curtsii has ever officially obtained species status from superbians. I've generally seen it listed as superbians var. curtsii.

The differences between these two flowers would even push the limits of varietal status in MHO. But it often goes back to knowing the source geography too.

I'm wondering, based on your short description, if the plants you got from Rands were actually ciliolare rather than curtsii, which in some older taxonomy systems is still just a variety of superbians too (and the spelling is close enough to goof things up). But at least ciliolare have more physical character differences (along with distinct range) from superbians.

Very nice both of them.. Leo, you might want to check out Neeri Orchid's website. They have a pic of superbiens vs curtisii and there apparently are differences in both leaf mottling and stem length too.. They also have a lot of interesting species (e.g. mohrianum, which I've never heard of before.. )

I picked up my first ciliolare before I had bought the curtisii from Rands. There was no mistake, the plants from Rands labelled curtisii were definitely not ciliolare. The differences were unmistakable. I am familiar with ciliolare. The curtisii from Rands were most like the curtisii pictured above, but clearly different. They may have been the "true" curtisii that Jack Fowlei had refered to in his 1970's series in Orchid Digest. They definitely were not the same as what is being traded around these days as curtisii.

paphioboy said:

Very nice both of them.. Leo, you might want to check out Neeri Orchid's website. They have a pic of superbiens vs curtisii and there apparently are differences in both leaf mottling and stem length too.. They also have a lot of interesting species (e.g. mohrianum, which I've never heard of before.. )

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll take a look

From the growers here, they all believe that the 2 plants should be separated because of the differences in Leaf mottling and color, pouch on the flower, the staminode, flower structure, natural habitat etc. Its all a bit confusing even to me but having seen the 2 side by side I can understand why.
The biggest problem you may find is the crossing of the 2 = P. Cymatodes.
Its quite possible that this plant has been spread around and used in breeding as P.curtisii or superbiens as it is so close to either, depending on growers culture, that its extremely hard to tell from C or S.
The combined name as I know the plants is P.superbiens and superbiens V Curtisii.

this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
this may be very wrong....

likespaphs said:

this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
this may be very wrong....

Click to expand...

I have a similar memory from once upon a time, though I thought it was the upper edge of the pouch not the entire pouch...

It is also worth noting that plants like these that may be several generations of selection away from the wild can be very different in appearance from the wild types.

I wonder if Sam would be able to shed some light on this topic?

Nice photos, Leo.

Most of what I heard bantered around was that curtsii was a dark form of superbians, which is basically born out in these photos given the dark base of the petals and dorsal sepal.

likespaphs said:

this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
this may be very wrong....

Click to expand...

I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.

SlipperKing said:

I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.

Click to expand...

The clone of superbienns var dayanum "Clarence Schubert" used to be widely availablle around the mid-west. Chuck Acker's father had a good number of the plants from Dr Schubert's collection, we are talking about the 1960 or 1970's. The senior Mr Acker had enough divisions of it that he used to sell the blooms as a cut flower to Madison area florists. Dick Clemments thought that this clone was really Cymatodes "Beechiense" but nothing definite was really determined. If you still have the plant, nurture it. I have not seen any pieces of it in 20 years. It is now pretty rare.

I have heard the same as far as differences between the two. BUT as Guido Braem and Eric Christiansen have oft reminded me. Unless you go back to the original descriptions, you can't be certain. I need to hit the books. Maybe someday when I have time.

Harold Koopowitz, in the 1995 OD Paph Checklist, notes that they have different chromosome numbers: curtisii 2n=36 (Karasawa, 1979); superbiens 2n=38 (Karasawa, 1979). He says, "Differences in chromosome number need not be grounds for separation into different species.

Two points:

1.Huh?? Sorry, dude, but different chromosome counts are one of the primary ways to define a species.

2.As noted before, the main problem is the plant material we're dealing with: mostly line-bred in captivity with who knows what.

I think they're different species based on what I've seen of them and read of them and the chromosome count.

We need to see and compare wild-collected type examples (with the correct chromosome numbers) , and see the original descriptions before we can be absolutely certain, but the chromosome number is a definitive criterion for me.

I think I noticed that bit about the difference chromosome numbers in Koopowitz' Book as well, and it made me scratch my head.

Here's a comment on the clone of superbiens that was used to make Cymatodes:

http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12407&highlight=Cymatodes&page=2

Of course it would be great to see a photo or illustration of that old clone, or the ones from the original import.

Sam Tsui currently offers divisions of Paph superbiens var. dayanum "Clarence Schubert". I never came across that varietal name before and couldn't find it on Kews lists. Stephen Manzas nice collection of old articles gives some clues.
There' an article by Reichenbach in his Xenia Orchidaceae on Cyp. superbiens. He describes the species as having a white dorsal with green stripes and petals of the same colour with black-purple spots and blotches. He refers to an older article by himself on superbiens var Dayanum, which he describes as identical to the type apart from the colour: the petals are "dull wine-red" instead of "white spotted with dark cromson". He then goes on on a picture he received under the name superbiens var. dayanum, which in his description is what later became known as "Cyp." dayanum. In fact, in the Xenia Orchideae article on the latter species, he is treating superbiens var. dayanum as a synonym.
So, Reichenbach initially considered a plant shown as Dayi as a variety of superbiens but later decided it was a different species known today as Paph. dayanum. There is no such thing like superbiens var. dayanum. Well, and if the "Clarence Schubert" clone in fact looks like Cymatodes "Beechense", it doesn't even have those "dull red-wine" coloured petals.

I have to agree with Tenman and Carsten about the difference in chromosome numbers. That is a BIG, BIG deal. You're talking about the difference of hundreds of thousands of genes present in one and not the other.
On the plant, Paph superbiens var. dayanum 'Clarence Schubert', Leo, I looked at it last night and it is two small growths but doing well. If it stays on course I might have flowers to show in 3 years!(oh brother!)

SlipperKing said:

I have to agree with Tenman and Carsten about the difference in chromosome numbers. That is a BIG, BIG deal. You're talking about the difference of hundreds of thousands of genes present in one and not the other.

Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes a metacentric chromosome in one individual may be equivalent to 2 telocentric chromosomes in another individual. There is no duplication or deletion of genetic material and the metacentric chromosome may even pair more-or-less normally with the 2 telocentric chromosomes at cell division. It might not be a stable situation in terms of evolutionary time but it would not necessarily mean there are 2 species involved. There are also other ways that differing chromosome numbers would not necessarily indicate different species.

PaphMadMan said:

This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes a metacentric chromosome in one individual may be equivalent to 2 telocentric chromosomes in another individual. There is no duplication or deletion of genetic material and the metacentric chromosome may even pair more-or-less normally with the 2 telocentric chromosomes at cell division. It might not be a stable situation in terms of evolutionary time but it would not necessarily mean there are 2 species involved. There are also other ways that differing chromosome numbers would not necessarily indicate different species.

Click to expand...

That is a lot of "if's" and "but's" you're putting out there. So prove to me with your metas and telos that these two species are indeed one.

We don't clasify tetraploids and triploids as different species.

Realizing thats a different situation. 4N= and 3N=

I am also reminded of a situation that I heard about in human males with an xtra stray y chromosome (apparently this condition is most common in the prison system, and something about increased violence). But still human.

What happens (chromosome wise) if you hybridize a var curtsii with nominal superbiens? What's the chromosome count for ciliolare?

SlipperKing said:

That is a lot of "if's" and "but's" you're putting out there. So prove to me with your metas and telos that these two species are indeed one.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to prove anything about these species/varieties/whatever they may be. I don't know if my example applies in this specific case, but it is just one possibility of different chromosome counts that could be the same species. Someone else has mention triploids and tetrapoids, and hinted at trisomy, and those are still just a some of the posibilities.

I do know that 'species' is an artificial concept we try to impose on the real biological world. I am never surprised when the real world does not fit neatly into the compartments we try to assign.

If 'curtisii' and 'superbiens' exist in the real world as distinct populations, with distinct and stable morphology, with no intergrades, and the chromosome counts cited are accurate and typical for each population, it is still a matter of judgement whether they should be considered species, varieties or just noted informally as populations that differ. As long as they are each other's closest relatives they can be lumped or split without violating any rules, depending on valid publication.

I was poking around in Cribb's book and noticed two chromosome counts that were interesting for this discusion

Paph gluacophylum 2n = 36, 37
Paph dayanum 2n = 34, 36

And then the entire group of pardopetalum species 2n = 26