New Koopowitz book

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ive got a gift card to Barnes and Nobles. They have the cover of the wardiis or such on the front....now Ive seen the one with the Lady Isabel too, is there a difference?? Im ordering books for classes right now I wanna toss it in.
 
Received the book Friday

A bit dissapointed at first glance --

Found the first serious error

Page 199:

The text says Phragmipedium longifolium, but the picture is a Phragmipedium Mont Fallu (longifolium x Grande)

Furthermore :

There's no pictures (and in some cases mention of) of

Paphiopedilum argus
Paphiopedilum ciliolare
Paphiopedilum appletonianum
Paphiopedilum dianthum
Paphiopedilum fowlei
Paphiopedilum dayanum
Paphiopedilum violascens

and a few others more

:mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
What I find very interesting is Koopowitz' concession that Braem may be right about the priority of P. crossii over callosum...but then says that the name callosum should be retained. Taxonomically, there really is no choice...if the name crossii is validly written, and pre-dates callosum, it has to be the correct name. Take care, Eric

The Animal Code has a "Common Usage" article that states roughly that if a name is in use for a long period of time and has become ubiquitous with a taxon, it may override priority. Does the plant Code have the same concession?

-Ernie
 
As far as I know, priority is everything...certainly with plants. I know that Braem continually expounds on that, and as far as I know, he is right. Even with animals, I still think that priority takes precedence over all. The paleontologist Robert Bakker complained in one of his books that Apatosaurus was the correct name for "Brontosaurus", and argued that the latter name should be retained due to its familiarity, but conceded that, scientifically, the former name had to take priority. Take care, Eric
 
I hope this is not a taxonomy book. For the most part that's pretty useless information for growing slippers.

Any good culture or habitat info?

Otherwise Birk's book is very helpful in this regard.
 
I've now perused the book thoroughly and read a good portion. I love the book....but is it the perfect slipper book? No, of course not....Phrag people may be disappointed...they do not get the full attention that paphs get. But then again, for phrags, what else is there? Cash's book is out of date and has awful photos. There are plenty of omissions....as Uri has already pointed out. It is most definitely not a taxonomy book, although taxonomy is discussed. It is also most definitely not a scientific text...it is above all a book about slippers, well, really paphs with some added phrag info...the species, the culture, the hybrids. As such I find it a valuable addition. So far the best books have been about species...Lance's book, Braem and Chiron's, Braem and the Bakers, can't afford the last Cribb book....and only one has been about hybrids, which was also by Koopowitz and Hasegawa...a great book long out of print..and out of date...still sometimes available on Ebay. To me, this is a wide ranging book with great photo's at a great price. Complaints? sure...I wish (like Uri) that some mentioned species were illustrated. I wish that hybrids had the species names mentioned in the captions. But these are piddling complaints about a truly enjoyable book, which is clearly intended for hobbyists. Take care, Eric
 
After having reviewed this book, it is obvious that the strength is the treatment of hybridizing of paphiopedilums. The section regarding complex hybrids is especially well written, and the hybrids in other sections are discussed at length.

The species are discussed within this context and not as a conclusive taxonomic treatment. Koopowitz does mention his preferred taxonomy as a basis for the species that are discussed, but that isn't the emphasis of the book.

All in all it is a unique book that discusses matters that haven't been addressed in such a manner. My kudos to Harold Koopowitz!
 
I recently ordered this. I'm in UK but ordered from US amazon because not only the book won't be avaialble until 15 March here, it actually works out cheaper to order from US even with international shipping included. Hope it arrives soon!
 
:D

It's been getting stronger recently, not quite as silly as a few months ago. Still, the price is good, I'll get it sooner so I'm a happy bunny all round.
 
I have got the book yesterday from Amazon Germany. Not being a Slipper specialist, my first impression is, that there are a lot of new information for me inside; for my (personal) taste perhaps a too extensive part about complex hybrids!
Jean
 
I have got the book yesterday from Amazon Germany. Not being a Slipper specialist, my first impression is, that there are a lot of new information for me inside; for my (personal) taste perhaps a too extensive part about complex hybrids!
Jean

Complex hybrids are quite a fascinating field. So far I know of only a couple of books ( including the Koopowitz and Hasegawa "Novelty Slipper Orchids" that deals with hybrids. It is a pity, because there is a lot to say and to study about those. That's a very good point for Harold book actually, but it could have been more extensive ( or maybe another book). Do not believe the breeders travel in the greenhouses and think 'one white boum another white, that's it, the next FCC is on the way !'. There are a lot of plants that have been studied, and are well known for their traits. From niveum to Hellas to many others. But no book, absolutely none, informs about that.

Personnally, I am a bit tired with the paph species book. After a while, one knows what is a delenatii or an armeniacum. For the remaining, there are a couple problematic groups for the taxonomy, in the insigne/coccineum/helenae/barbigerum/rhizomatosum and the like, but nearly no book focus on these extensively anyway.

They are passed by with a couple of nice photos of "typical" helenae ( who knows that the common type of helenae is dirty brown, not yellow?), barbigerum ( the dull, widely available type, there are some populations that have bright, clear, colors), and that's it.

There is no need to repeat again and again what a rothschildianum or a delenatii is, everyone knows, and there are a lot of books that already mentions those two species.

One thing that always surprise me with all the paphs species books, there are quite a few plants that are known for ages, and never mentioned.

What about Paph praestans(glanduliferum) 'red leaf', with burgundy underside of the leaves ? It is quite to very common, but nowhere to be found in the "paph taxonomy books", where praestans has "green leaves".

Kolopakingii and topperii are quite different plants and flowers. There are not that good explanations, yet all the authors have mentionned the two.

Palawanense is NOT the dwarf paph philippinense, but a hybrid between randsii x philippinense, very rare.

Sanderianum can be as large as kolopakingii, but no mention in any taxonomy books.

In the natural hybrids, argus, acmodontum and ciliolare breed like rabbits. There are giant forms of ciliolare. Never mentioned in those books.

P.rothschildianum has a pygmy form. No mention, nowhere, except in 'Novelty Slipper Orchids'. The plants are in the 20-25cm leafspan (not individual leaf, leafspan) maximum. All the taxonomists have seen plants of that.

For dianthum and parishii, I believed before that they were separate species. Now, I would think that dianthum is a variety of parishii, because many plants from Laos are intermediate between the two. Yet, the paph books will show pictures of "typical" parishii, and "typical" dianthum, not the intermediate forms that are much more interesting.

And I have to know first hand that all the authors are aware of the above mentionned plants, and have seen them. Lance Birk actually introduced some pictures of funny plants, like a gorgeous lowii/haynaldianum from Philippines. But for the remaining, it is always the pictures of typical examples of typical species. The pictorial indexes 'Paphiopedilum in Taiwan' are wonderful, to know how good a plant can be (even if there are some dogs in their pics, like some micranthum or hangianum, but anyway), but many plants available will not fit these pictures at all.

For the taxonomy, I remember that it is possible to keep a name that is popular, not to make any confusion. I belive crossii is the older name for callosum, but it would make a real mess. Think in 20 years, people have to still remember thailandense, callosum var. vietnamense ( not formally described, but appears here and there), sublaeve, viniferum, crossii, and some more. Lumping is maybe good for taxonomists, but for horticulturists, it is a real disaster. Many 'varieties' name are essential to understand why an hybrid or a plant looks like that. Callosum var. thailandense is maybe a callosum ( for sure), close to sublaeve botanically, but for breeding, the results are different. wilhelminiae is 10-12 cm leafspan, gardineri 20-30 cm, and praestans from Waigeo can be 1.2m leafspan. If we lump everything under wilhelminiae and praestans, in a century, people will not be able to remake some crosses.

The best paph book remains to be written I believe...
 
I think Cribbs book still is the best reference when it comes Paphiopedilum monographs.He tries to keep it as simple as possible-


>Palawanense is NOT the dwarf paph philippinense, but a hybrid between >randsii x philippinense, very rare

I'm more than sceptical to this kind of statement -

It has been known for ages that there is dwarf types of philipinense-- which has nothing to do with a randsii hybrid!

Phillipinense is widespread throughout the phillippine Islands -- the smaller type plants are called palawanense by some, while others call it the mindoro strain -- but anyway this type is very common in the phillippines
 
I think Cribbs book still is the best reference when it comes Paphiopedilum monographs.He tries to keep it as simple as possible-

>Palawanense is NOT the dwarf paph philippinense, but a hybrid between >randsii x philippinense, very rare

I'm more than sceptical to this kind of statement -
It has been known for ages that there is dwarf types of philipinense-- which has nothing to do with a randsii hybrid!
Phillipinense is widespread throughout the phillippine Islands -- the smaller type plants are called palawanense by some, while others call it the mindoro strain -- but anyway this type is very common in the phillippines

The dwarf type of philippinense is actually laevigatum, and very common.

Paph. palawanense has been described from a plant imported by Marcel Lecoufle in France. Then it got its fancy name 'palawanense'. But no one in the world can know the source from that peculiar plant, as they were simply imports from Kabukiran, who in turn did not know the exact source of their plants.

I have seen a couple pictures of the plant used to describe palawanense, and it was definitely a randsii x philippinense. Some plants appear here and there, they have non-twisted petals ( a feature mentionned in the original description of "palawanense") slightly arching.

But I agree that many of those books are simply redundant, and Phillip Cribb book is quite OK, except the lack of quite a few species now ( ooii, intaniae, hangianum, amongst others). Still that book is a very narrow view of all the species and forms of paphiopedilum that exist.
 
This showed up for me on Monday in honor of Valentine’s Day. (My husband remembered I’d wanted it!) As if anyone needs to be told this at this point, it’s excellent, especially in the sense that it would be a great first read for someone just getting into slippers and experts alike; it’s a special thing when people can share their knowledge with no signs of pedantry. Big thumbs up.
 
Complex hybrids are quite a fascinating field. So far I know of only a couple of books ( including the Koopowitz and Hasegawa "Novelty Slipper Orchids" that deals with hybrids. It is a pity, because there is a lot to say and to study about those. That's a very good point for Harold book actually, but it could have been more extensive ( or maybe another book). Do not believe the breeders travel in the greenhouses and think 'one white boum another white, that's it, the next FCC is on the way !'. There are a lot of plants that have been studied, and are well known for their traits. From niveum to Hellas to many others. But no book, absolutely none, informs about that.

Personnally, I am a bit tired with the paph species book. After a while, one knows what is a delenatii or an armeniacum. For the remaining, there are a couple problematic groups for the taxonomy, in the insigne/coccineum/helenae/barbigerum/rhizomatosum and the like, but nearly no book focus on these extensively anyway.

They are passed by with a couple of nice photos of "typical" helenae ( who knows that the common type of helenae is dirty brown, not yellow?), barbigerum ( the dull, widely available type, there are some populations that have bright, clear, colors), and that's it.

There is no need to repeat again and again what a rothschildianum or a delenatii is, everyone knows, and there are a lot of books that already mentions those two species.

One thing that always surprise me with all the paphs species books, there are quite a few plants that are known for ages, and never mentioned.

What about Paph praestans(glanduliferum) 'red leaf', with burgundy underside of the leaves ? It is quite to very common, but nowhere to be found in the "paph taxonomy books", where praestans has "green leaves".

Kolopakingii and topperii are quite different plants and flowers. There are not that good explanations, yet all the authors have mentionned the two.

Palawanense is NOT the dwarf paph philippinense, but a hybrid between randsii x philippinense, very rare.

Sanderianum can be as large as kolopakingii, but no mention in any taxonomy books.

In the natural hybrids, argus, acmodontum and ciliolare breed like rabbits. There are giant forms of ciliolare. Never mentioned in those books.

P.rothschildianum has a pygmy form. No mention, nowhere, except in 'Novelty Slipper Orchids'. The plants are in the 20-25cm leafspan (not individual leaf, leafspan) maximum. All the taxonomists have seen plants of that.

For dianthum and parishii, I believed before that they were separate species. Now, I would think that dianthum is a variety of parishii, because many plants from Laos are intermediate between the two. Yet, the paph books will show pictures of "typical" parishii, and "typical" dianthum, not the intermediate forms that are much more interesting.

And I have to know first hand that all the authors are aware of the above mentionned plants, and have seen them. Lance Birk actually introduced some pictures of funny plants, like a gorgeous lowii/haynaldianum from Philippines. But for the remaining, it is always the pictures of typical examples of typical species. The pictorial indexes 'Paphiopedilum in Taiwan' are wonderful, to know how good a plant can be (even if there are some dogs in their pics, like some micranthum or hangianum, but anyway), but many plants available will not fit these pictures at all.

For the taxonomy, I remember that it is possible to keep a name that is popular, not to make any confusion. I belive crossii is the older name for callosum, but it would make a real mess. Think in 20 years, people have to still remember thailandense, callosum var. vietnamense ( not formally described, but appears here and there), sublaeve, viniferum, crossii, and some more. Lumping is maybe good for taxonomists, but for horticulturists, it is a real disaster. Many 'varieties' name are essential to understand why an hybrid or a plant looks like that. Callosum var. thailandense is maybe a callosum ( for sure), close to sublaeve botanically, but for breeding, the results are different. wilhelminiae is 10-12 cm leafspan, gardineri 20-30 cm, and praestans from Waigeo can be 1.2m leafspan. If we lump everything under wilhelminiae and praestans, in a century, people will not be able to remake some crosses.

The best paph book remains to be written I believe...

I think you should definitely produce a book of paph species, I just thought that to really doing an impressive book, a person will have to stay in those countries that he/she covers for many years & travel extensively.
In fact. I would not mind to own book that studies only one species at a time, with hundreds pictures of flower/leaves etc of all the variations & natural hybrids of just that species. To own such a book is a great alternative to searching & collecting more & more variations.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top