Mexipedium directly into the vein! 
It's sooooooo cute!
It's sooooooo cute!
Hookerae ‘Icarus Wings’
- Thread starter DrLeslieEe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hookerae
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
SlipperKing
Madd Virologist
You should put you Mexi in the Mexi Thread
Beautiful Mexi!!
masaccio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 224
Beautiful flower and informative posts. I have a volonteanum (I gather that hookerae and volonteanum are quite similar but are considered distinct species now(?) that just started to spike about a week and a half ago. I know now that I have quite a wait in front of me.
Thanks! Wishing you luck in getting the bud to bloom nicely. Keep it where it is and try not to move it from the same conditions it budded.
Well, I think, that depends on your position in the ongoing, botanical trench war between 'lumpers' and 'spreaders'. The former would probably see them as two, distinctly separate species in their own right; while the latter would still operate with volonteanum being a variety of hookerae. I don't think, there are conclusive evidence, nor consensus about botanist in favour of either position - so: take your pick!
masaccio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 224
Yeah, far be it from me to have my own opinion about this. LanceB treats them as separate species. Braem also treats them as separate species last time I checked. Who knows what they've come up with. I admit to having a moment of disbelief when the "powers that be" decided that Sedirea japonica was a Phalaenopsis.
I’m up in the air about the lumping and splitting.
If you consider that humans and apes have about 97-98% identical DNA - and we all have met folks that could be in either camp - how reliable are any assessments of synonymy?
If you consider that humans and apes have about 97-98% identical DNA - and we all have met folks that could be in either camp - how reliable are any assessments of synonymy?
eds
Well-Known Member
I vary depending on context!
In hobbies I think we should split to the lowest level possible. Many people who will cross very different members of one species wouldn't cross two different species, no matter how similar!
Whereas in the wild I think there is sometimes a tendency to split too far when closely related species are interchanging genetic material still - gulls are a great example of this!
In hobbies I think we should split to the lowest level possible. Many people who will cross very different members of one species wouldn't cross two different species, no matter how similar!
Whereas in the wild I think there is sometimes a tendency to split too far when closely related species are interchanging genetic material still - gulls are a great example of this!
Kew on the other hand treats volonteanum as a variety of hookerae.... with Braem (sic!) as their reference: Paphiopedilum hookerae var. volonteanum (Sander ex Rolfe) Braem | Plants of the World Online | Kew Science
Once again: take your pick!
It is without question this dilemma will continue for a long time, depending on which grower or taxonomists you confer with.
Logically, the two share many morphological and phylogenetic traits. And the reasons they are separated are as good a reason why the appletonianum complexes should be separated.
My stance is that they are related and volonteanum is a variety of hookerae. For two reasons:
1. They are found in the same area, separated by elevation (volonteanum occurs in higher elevations). This difference in ecoclines may have dictated minor plant adaptations (such as tanning of leaves to protect against increased sun exposure of volonteanum in the mountains). These adaptations may allow the plant to survive the more extreme weather.
2. The cooler elevation also allows pigments to congregate in higher saturation to evolve darker and intensely colored flowers (in volonteanum). The more colorful flowers may attract the pollinators more, therefore creating more heavily pigmented flowers than lower elevations.
If volonteanum was discovered on another island far far away, then perhaps the argument for a different speciation status is more logical and valid.
My two cents lol.
Logically, the two share many morphological and phylogenetic traits. And the reasons they are separated are as good a reason why the appletonianum complexes should be separated.
My stance is that they are related and volonteanum is a variety of hookerae. For two reasons:
1. They are found in the same area, separated by elevation (volonteanum occurs in higher elevations). This difference in ecoclines may have dictated minor plant adaptations (such as tanning of leaves to protect against increased sun exposure of volonteanum in the mountains). These adaptations may allow the plant to survive the more extreme weather.
2. The cooler elevation also allows pigments to congregate in higher saturation to evolve darker and intensely colored flowers (in volonteanum). The more colorful flowers may attract the pollinators more, therefore creating more heavily pigmented flowers than lower elevations.
If volonteanum was discovered on another island far far away, then perhaps the argument for a different speciation status is more logical and valid.
My two cents lol.
Last edited:
masaccio
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 224
Kew on the other hand treats volonteanum as a variety of hookerae.... with Braem (sic!) as their reference: Paphiopedilum hookerae var. volonteanum (Sander ex Rolfe) Braem | Plants of the World Online | Kew Science
Once again: take your pick!
The Braem reference you cited from Kew seems to be from 1988. I'm looking at his 2003 monograph, Paphiopedilum, Braem and Chiron (Preface by Koopowitz). He does state that the differences between the two are very minor, and that he doubts, if botanically, that volonteanum is more than a distinct variety of hookerae. But he does go on to discuss distinct differences.... p.193. My feeling is of yours. Take your pick. It doesn't seem as if his world revolves around this question either.
Last edited:
Leslie first of all absolutely stunning. I have to ask why feed every 2 to 3 waterings for this guy when you feed every other watering for other paphs? Also, when you do feed what's the PPM of nitrogen you're using? If you're staying under 300 tds you probably aren't feeding that much. For it to be so green and robust on less fertilizer intrigues me.
Hey Russ... I meant I feed every 3rd watering (or second).
I never calculate my nitrogen levels because I rotate the fertilizers and they look green and growing lol.
What I do is keep eye on the TDS (300-600 ppm) and pH (5.5-6.5) with EC 0.5-1.0 ranges. That is because RO water can fling those values drastically with certain fertilizers not made for RO or rainwater (like Miracle Grow).
Similar threads
