New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by PHRAG, Jun 28, 2006.
Wow, no kidding!? I wonder how mine is going to turn out!
Maybe Norman's sent me a nice philippinense because they knew they were going to have to send me a crappy Bllra? :rollhappy:
That's fabulous! :clap:
I can lump phillipinense and laevigatum together... No problems for me...
Main reason is that as far as I know (and I'm probably wrong) the major difference between the varieties is the petal stance and degree of twist. From that, I'd wager that the plant pictured at the top of this thread is really phil x laevigatum. Or, it has a substantial percentage of laevigatum in the background... Which makes it???
This is the reason I'm a lumper. Largely because there is no way to sort out plants now. If they are jungle collected, that is one thing. But, after they have been in captivity for years, and people breed different varieties together without keeping track, it gets hard. I don't mind leaving it phil. var. laevigatum, phil var. roebelinii, etc, but still I don't trust that they are genetically 'pure'.
If laevi is generally more blond and less twisty?
I'm not a taxonomist, nor do I play one on TV (or the internet) but, my understanding of laevigatum was that it is supposed to hold its petals in a more outward stance (more of a 30-45 degree angle) with less twist. I think roebelinii holds its petals almost straight down with a lot of twist. Philippinense is somewhere inbetween. I don't know that color is really a diagnostic feature (and never should be enough to split a species, in my opinion). If their natural ranges overlap (I seem to recall that they do), I'd probably call this a hybrid swarm. It is very difficult (for me) to make sharp cuts between 'species' when there is natural interbreeding going on.
That is all based on what I knew 10 or 15 years ago. I don't know a lot about what is current in the philippenense world of taxonomy. For what it is worth, I have the same problems with chamberlainianum/primulinum (and close relatives) too (I think it is a hybrid swarm). And wilhelminae/praestans/glanduliferum. But that is the lumper in me talking. This is the kind of statement that drives taxonomists to draw pistols at 20 paces, so I'm sure somebody will violently disagree with me... I've got my fire resistant suit on.
I don't know what makes a phil "great" cause they're all great!
I love em :smitten: they touch something fuzzy in the deep recesses of my soul oke:
So many beautiful philippinese! :drool: :drool: :drool: :smitten: :smitten: :smitten:
Of course you can lump them together. They are the same thing. The SAME plant described by two different authors. The description of laevigatum by Bateman matches EXACTLY the description of philippinense.
My var. (or is it type or.... ) laevigatum is in bud. I would like to hear ALL about it when it blooms and I post photos here. I have bloomed roebbelinii but not yet my philippinense.
Oh, and I'm happy to report that I learned the correct spelling of Roebbelen today.
I'm sure you'll all be as happy as I am to know I have corrected my database.
Separate names with a comma.