New Selenipedium species described.

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by Rob Zuiderwijk, Feb 26, 2015.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Feb 26, 2015 #1

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    www.slipperiana.info

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  2. Feb 26, 2015 #2

    eggshells

    eggshells

    eggshells

    Humongous Gnat

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Canada
    Thanks for sharing. Interesting, the lack of pouch.
     
  3. Feb 26, 2015 #3

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Thanks for posting, Rob.
     
  4. Feb 26, 2015 #4

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    phytomanic

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin USA
    A slipperless slipper orchid! :rollhappy:
     
  5. Feb 26, 2015 #5

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    It's barefoot.
     
  6. Feb 27, 2015 #6

    NYEric

    NYEric

    NYEric

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    47,081
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    New York City Apartment
    Cool. Maybe it can be crossed to other Selenipedium to make them hardier.
     
  7. Feb 27, 2015 #7

    tomkalina

    tomkalina

    tomkalina

    Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Naperville, IL
    How many examples found had no pouch?
     
  8. Feb 27, 2015 #8

    gonewild

    gonewild

    gonewild

    Grower

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Puerto Maldonado, Peru
    Assume they all have no pouch since that is what the used for the description????
     
  9. Feb 27, 2015 #9

    Secundino

    Secundino

    Secundino

    Adorable Stud

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    2,315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Spain
    Evolution still going on ...
     
  10. Feb 27, 2015 #10

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    phytomanic

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin USA
    The pouch has reverted to a form similar to the petals. Phrag lindenii is another example of this. It could be a pretty small genetic difference, just disrupt one developmental gene perhaps. In that environment it must lead to more efficient pollination by a different pollinator or it wouldn't have become established.
     
  11. Feb 27, 2015 #11

    Paphluvr

    Paphluvr

    Paphluvr

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Base of the Thumb, Michigan
    Also interesting that it has three separate sepals rather than a fused synsepal.
     
  12. Feb 27, 2015 #12

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    www.slipperiana.info

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    @Tom: In the text they speak of 8 other specimen next to the holotype that they studied between 2001 and 2015.
    They also say that until now they where unable to find any other population(s), and that the habitat it grows in is very rare indeed.


    And further, in all aspects this looks to me like a peloric taxon. From the description it is clear that the pouch shaped lip is replaced by a petal like lip. the synsepalum is split into two separate petals (or more correct: The two petals are not fused into a synsepalum) and there are three fertile anthers instead of two.
    So in appearance a throw back to a lily like ancestor.

    All in all and interesting discovery.


    Rob.
     
  13. Feb 27, 2015 #13

    tomkalina

    tomkalina

    tomkalina

    Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Naperville, IL
    Thanks Rob.
     
  14. Feb 27, 2015 #14
    Definitely a very interesting species! This species might be the most primitive or "ancestral" of all the lady slippers, and may have changed the least compared to any other lady slipper species. At one point the common ancestor of all lady slippers did have 3 anthers, 3 sepals, and 3 petals. I think the genus Selenipedium in general looks more ancestral than any other lady slipper genus. It would be interesting to do a DNA experiment to determine which species are more "ancient".

    I think when you look at Phrag. lindenii, this is a reverse mutation, and probably at one point it's ancestor looked more like Phrag. wallisii (aka warscewiczianum).

    Ok this is my Hypothesis regarding how the different Lady Slipper Genera are related and evolved. At one point I noticed that some Cypripedium species, native to Mexico, like Cyp. irapeanum, look like they may be "intermediate" and more closely related to Selenipedium. Also, when you look at the other side of the world, some species of Paphiopedilum, like Paph. micranthum and Paph. armeniacum look like they are more closely related to Cypripediums. This gave me the following idea:

    I think at one point in time the common ancestor of all lady slippers originated in what is now South America, and was something that looked like this new species Selenipedium chironianum. Just like it's lily ancestors, it had 3 anthers, 3 sepals and 3 petals, of which one petal was starting to morph, and become a little more differently shaped compared to it's "sister" petals. from this ancestral type, other species of Selenipedium evolved. The third petal of these species kept evolving, and slowly turned into what we call a "pouch". It was probably an evolutionary advantage to attract (or trap) their pollinators, and thus have more off-spring. Also, over time the two lower sepals joined into what we now call the "synsepal". And finally, instead of having 3 anthers, the new species evolved with having only 2 anthers. The third anther actually morphed into what we now call the "staminodal shield". Eventually from some common ancestor that probably looked like some extinct Selenipedium species, populations got isolated, and over time evolved into the related genus "Phragmipedium". This new genus furthur evolved and spread throughout South and Central America. Populations of Selenipedium that were further north evolved into species that looked more like the modern day Cyp. irapeanum, and these ancestral Cypripedium species formed the ancestors of the new genus Cypripedium. This new genus spread and evolved all over the Northern Hemisphere, and eventually reached Asia and Europe. When they reached the tropical parts of China, again they were separated long enough that they evolved into a new genus: Paphiopedilum, of which I think the parvisepalums (like Paph. armeniacum and Paph. micranthum) are probably the most closely related to Cypripediums...From China they spread throughout all of South East Asia, India, and all the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines to evolve into all the different Paph. species.

    Anyway that is my hypothesis of Lady Slipper Evolution in a nut shell. Now we need to prove it :)

    Btw, if you ask me what is the most "ancestral" Phragmipedium species, I would probably say that it is something that would look like Phrag. sargentianum.

    Robert
     
  15. Feb 27, 2015 #15

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    PaphMadMan

    phytomanic

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madison, Wisconsin USA
    Interesting hypotheses Robert. There are at least a dozen doctoral theses in the evolutionary scheme you suggest, but sticking to this species I think it is far more likely that it had a more typical Selenipedium ancestor and lost the specialized (slipper) orchid characteristics. I haven't read the whole paper yet, my French isn't good enough to make it a casual read, but the authors describe it as a close relative of Selenipedium palmifolium which doesn't seem consistent with it being a primitive relict form. And if it were it would probably have to be considered a new genus.

    Almost all orchids have a relationship with a single species or small range of pollinators. The changes here wouldn't be surprising if a population got isolated away from the specialized pollinators and had to adapt to whatever generalized pollinators were available, especially if any pollinators were rare in that environment.

    Anyway, that's my hypothesis. Now, who wants to fund the research?
     
  16. Feb 27, 2015 #16
    LOL, we should do a joint research!

    btw, This new species has 3 characteristics that are considered more "primitive":
    - having 3 petals (and no pouch)
    - having 3 anthers (instead of two)
    - having 3 sepals (rather than a dorsal sepal and a fused synsepal)

    The chance of having 3 reversed mutations i.e going back to it's ancestral type seem very small and unlikely. I learned early on that if you have two hypotheses that the most simple one, is often (but not always) correct.

    Our hypotheses are:

    #1 ancestral type which had 3 anthers, no pouch, and 3 sepals evolved into a species with a pouch, two anthers, and a synsepal. This species evolved again into the species Selenipedium chironianum which had reverted back to not having a pouch, having 3 anthers, and 3 sepals.

    # 2 ancestral type evolved into Selenipedium chironianum, still having 3 anthers, no pouch, and 3 sepals.

    To me Hypothesis #2 seems the most simple and most likely one.

    So, the question is how do we prove Hypothesis #1 is correct or Hypothesis # 2 is correct?



    Robert
     
  17. Feb 28, 2015 #17

    naoki

    naoki

    naoki

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,078
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Robert, you might be interested in this relatively recent paper:

    Guo Y-Y, Luo Y-B, Liu Z-J, Wang X-Q (2012) Evolution and Biogeography of the Slipper Orchids: Eocene Vicariance of the Conduplicate Genera in the Old and New World Tropics. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38788.

    Code:
                 --Paphiopedilum
              __/
         ____/  \--Phragmipedium
     _ _/     \----Mexipedium
    /    \---------Selenipedium
    \--------------Cypripedium
    But the support for the branch grouping everything except Cypripedium appears to be not as strong as the other branches.

    Also, I thought that there were several other orchid groups which diverged within Orchidaceae before Cypripedioideae. I'm not sure if they have column/pollinia structure, though.
     
  18. Feb 28, 2015 #18
    Thanks Naoki! That was an interesting paper! Well, according to their paper, the genus Cypripedium is most ancestral, followed by Selenipedium. Phrags, Mexipedium and Paphs are the most advanced. Also what I found was interesting is that within the Cypripediums, the Mexican species including Cyp. irapeanum were the most primitive, which can explain why they show similarities with Selenipedium.

    Robert
     
  19. Feb 28, 2015 #19

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    Rob Zuiderwijk

    www.slipperiana.info

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No offence, but I think you made a mistake in the branch graphic (cladogram). Paphiopedilum and Mexipedium/Phragmipedium should switch place. I changed it in the quoted text in this message.

    Rob
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  20. Feb 28, 2015 #20

    polyantha

    polyantha

    polyantha

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Yes, I was thinking the same. An interesting new species, but very ugly in my eyes. one could argue that P. ooii is ugly too, but actually I like that paph. Crazy orchid world where we sometimes cannot explain why we like some plants and others not...
     

Share This Page

arrow_white