P. gardneri

[Eric Muehlbauer]

Here is the gardneri that I had posted earlier when it was in bud. I won it on a Slippertalk auction last year. Now...what is it really? I had thought that gardneri was synonymous with praestans/glanduliferum....Koopowitz say that its synonymous with wilhelminiae. Now....I would think that this plant is wilhelminiae, due to its small size, fewer blooms (2 on one spike, 1 on the other), but wilhelminiae is supposed to be white in the dorsal. This clearly has a yellow base to the dorsal. Regardless, I am very happy with it...Take care, Eric

 

[John M]

I don't know what to say, really; but, it does look like a nice, robust wilhelminiae and the low bud count and small plant size goes along with that assessment. The yellow in the dorsal could fade in a few days as well.

p.s. It's very ugly. You'd better send it to me...I collect ugly!

 

[JeanLux]

Nice growing Eric!!! 2 spikes on a few growths plant :clap: ! wilhelminiae, gardneri ... whatever, but very pretty!! Jean

 

[Greenpaph]

Very nice wilhelminae!

 

[paphjoint]

Very nice !

 

[emydura]

Very nice Eric. I agree with the rest. It is a wilhiminiae.

David

 

[Paul]

Very nice Eric. I agree with the rest. It is a wilhiminiae.

David

+2

Nice darks petals :clap:

 

[paphioboy]

Very nice wilhelminiae.. And compact too.. What a cutie..

 

[Rick]

Looks pretty good to me:clap:, what is the source of your plant Eric?

Color hues in the dorsal are not part of the metrics for the plant descriptions.

In Garay's description the main differentiation for wilhelm (vs gardineri) is a total lack of petal twisting. I have yet to see a plant that consistently produces flowers according to Garay's description.

But according to Cribb's description of a diminutive plant with a low flower count per spike (along with the basic flower you have) conforms to wilhelm.

 

[goldenrose]

:clap::clap: I'd be happy with it too!

 

[Elena]

Excellent! :clap:

 

[Corbin]

Nice!

 

[SlipperFan]

Name confusion is certainly confusing.

Nice flower, nonetheless.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

well, I spent the day researching what I could...and have come to the conclusion that it has to be wilhelminiae. Don't know its exact origin...I won it last year right here, in an auction....maybe Heather knows...Take care, Eric

 

[Ernie]

I think it's wilhelminae too.

Excuse this bit, but, you guys know me, I just can't resist... It's spelled wilhelminae not wilhelminiae. (I shield myself from flying, rotten vegetables or snowballs with rocks and dipped in water...).

-Ernie

 

[Elena]

RHS (and Cribb) say wilhelminiae

http://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/registerpages/orchiddetails.asp?ID=1373

oke:

 

[Ernie]

Oh sheesh.

-Ernie

 

[Rick]

Oh sheesh.

-Ernie

That's why I just call them wilhelms.

At least you didn't agree to eat a broomoke:oke:

 

[Ernie]

As close as I could get online to the original description which was in the AOS bulletin.
http://www.orchidspng.com/contrib_garay2.html
Anyone out there have Williams' original article or the O Digest reprint?

-Ernie

 

[Rick]

As close as I could get online to the original description which was in the AOS bulletin.
http://www.orchidspng.com/contrib_garay2.html
Anyone out there have Williams' original article or the O Digest reprint?

-Ernie

This one has been brought up a few other times Ernie. What do you mean by the OD reprint? The 2000 Checklist by Koopowitz? (I have that)