Concolor v. Cholorophyllum

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

GuRu

experienced greenhorn
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
5,420
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Germany
Nice concolor.

Indeed, this is just a P. concolor with a more sulphur yellow ground colouration. At one hand the var. chlorophyllum isn't accepted by some taxonomists e.g. O. Gruus (see his new book at page 166) and should look another way on the other hand. Lovely flower though ! 👍
 

DirGo

having a soft spot for albino slipper species
Supporting Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
387
Location
Belgium
Indeed, this is just a P. concolor with a more sulphur yellow ground colouration. At one hand the var. chlorophyllum isn't accepted by some taxonomists e.g. O. Gruus (see his new book at page 166) and should look another way on the other hand. Lovely flower though ! 👍

Hi Rudolf, as you know I am certainly no botianist & sadly I could not find back the source I remember.
But if I remember correctly concolor (var./subsp.) chlorophyllum was discribed in the past and later correctly reduced to normal variation within the type species.
It was discribed as lacking the red spots under the leaves resulting in pale green "chloro" leaves "phyllum"
even if no longer an offical name, I still like it is being used in horticulture to differentiate these striking plants with pale green leaves without any red coloring. I don't remember flower color playing a role in defining "chlorophyllum"
 

GuRu

experienced greenhorn
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
5,420
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Germany
Hi Rudolf, as you know I am certainly no botianist & sadly I could not find back the source I remember.
But if I remember correctly concolor (var./subsp.) chlorophyllum was discribed in the past and later correctly reduced to normal variation within the type species.
It was discribed as lacking the red spots under the leaves resulting in pale green "chloro" leaves "phyllum"
even if no longer an offical name, I still like it is being used in horticulture to differentiate these striking plants with pale green leaves without any red coloring. I don't remember flower color playing a role in defining "chlorophyllum"
Dirk, your're right. P. concolor ssp. chlorophyllum was described in 1977 by Dr. Jack Fowlie. And you are also right, the lack of the purple colouration on the underside of the leaves was the main trait to distinguish it from the straight P. concolor. According to O. Gruss the flower of the described ssp. chlorophyllum should look similar to Paph. concolor var. striatum. It's ground colour should be a cream white with a distinct dotted line in the middle of the dorsal and the sepals. O. Gruss says furthermore the same what you mentioned, that this name should only unsed as a cultivar name or name for its geographical origin.

According to the photos in Olafs new book, the here shown flower is a pretty P. concolor.
 

Guldal

ST Supporter
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
3,773
Reaction score
1,872
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
According to O. Gruss the flower of the described ssp. chlorophyllum should look similar to Paph. concolor var. striatum. It's ground colour should be a cream white with a distinct dotted line in the middle of the dorsal and the sepals.
That's bollocks - pardon my French, Rudolf.
I once had a chlorophyllum - and its flower looked exactly as the typical form, though there we not even a speck of anthocyanin to be found on the plant itself.
Now we are at it: my memory might elude me - and/or botanists might like the rest of us, of course, change their minds, but I somehow remember to have seen Gruß sink var. (fma.) striatum into synonymity with the typical variety?
 

GuRu

experienced greenhorn
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
5,420
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Germany
That's bollocks - pardon my French, Rudolf.
I once had a chlorophyllum - and its flower looked exactly as the typical form, though there we not even a speck of anthocyanin to be found on the plant itself.
My friend Jens, bollocks is a word I only would use when I'm completely certain. Do you have or read in the description of Dr. Fowlei from 1977. I only wrote down with my words what O. Gruss wrote in his new book on page 166.

Now we are at it: my memory might elude me - and/or botanists might like the rest of us, of course, change their minds, but I somehow remember to have seen Gruß sink var. (fma.) striatum into synonymity with the typical variety?
Not completely, Jens. He writes that ssp. chlorophyllum partly is been traded as var. striatum.
 

Guldal

ST Supporter
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
3,773
Reaction score
1,872
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
My friend Jens, bollocks is a word I only would use when I'm completely certain. Do you have or read in the description of Dr. Fowlei from 1977. I only wrote down with my words what O. Gruss wrote in his new book on page 166.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, Rudolf! The 'bollocks' was aimed at Gruß' considerations, but I unfortunately hit the messenger in my excitement! Please, bear with me! 🙏
It's sometime back I read it, and it might have been Braem, that sunk striatum into the typical variety - can't find the quote through... But as Troy, I had a chlorophyllum without a trace of anthocyanin in its vegetative growth, but a perfectly typical flower. This might hint towards the possibility, that the chlorophyllum feature exists within as well the typical as the striatum varieties (if you recognize the latter, that is - if sunk into synonymity with the typical variety, voilá, no problem! Keine Hexerie, nur Behändigkeit 😁)...I am at a loss whether colour variance only pertaining to vegetative features can call for the use of the epithet 'forma' (fma.) or if such a designation can be used only for such differences in respect to floral features?
 

Guldal

ST Supporter
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
3,773
Reaction score
1,872
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Hi Rudolf, as you know I am certainly no botianist & sadly I could not find back the source I remember.
But if I remember correctly concolor (var./subsp.) chlorophyllum was discribed in the past and later correctly reduced to normal variation within the type species.
It was discribed as lacking the red spots under the leaves resulting in pale green "chloro" leaves "phyllum"
even if no longer an offical name, I still like it is being used in horticulture to differentiate these striking plants with pale green leaves without any red coloring. I don't remember flower color playing a role in defining "chlorophyllum"
Makes perfectly sense to me - and untill some botanist validly publishes a sensible taxonomic evaluation of this feature, we might all live in peace by taking recourse to calling our epithet horticultural, i.e. Paphiopedilum concolor var. or fma. chlorophyllum (Hort.)!
 

GuRu

experienced greenhorn
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
5,420
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Germany
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, Rudolf! The 'bollocks' was aimed at Gruß' considerations, but I unfortunately hit the messenger in my excitement! Please, bear with me! 🙏
Jens, no need to apologize ! I didn't feel offended. I understood that you ment O.Gruss and I thought my response would express this.
 
Top