Quantcast

P. intaniae

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

silence882

Lurker
ST Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
962
Reaction score
76
Location
Maryland
From what I've read, it's thought to be an artificial hybrid between philippinense and parishii or dianthum that is posing as a newfound species.

--Stephen
 
B

bench72

Guest
the site is definitely a 'splitter'... eg Paph chiwuanum, Paph esquirolei, Paph hirsutissimum... and that is just one example... the appletonianum complex looks like it's been split up to.

and to top it all off.. there isn't even any philippinense :(

cheers
 

Rick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
12,765
Reaction score
3
Location
Leiper's Fork, TN
Koopowitz gives it credability as a "good species" in the Orchid Digest paph checklist (2000).

Its listed in Birk's second revised edition (2004) with local data. Central Sulawesi

Not listed in Cribb's 2nd edition (1998)
 

SlipperFan

Addicted
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
43,287
Reaction score
17
Location
Michigan, USA
Nice flowers, whether species or hybrid. Someday they might get all this sorted out, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
O

ORG

Guest
Dear Stephen,
when you would have the possibility to see Paph. intaniae in bloom then you would accept this species as a distinct species. It is really very different to Paph. Umatilla the cross between parishii and philippinense.
The species was described 2000 by William Cavestro. The plants (more than 1000 identical) were found by Ayub Parnata or one of his collectors in Sulawesi.

Best greetings

Olaf
 

silence882

Lurker
ST Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
962
Reaction score
76
Location
Maryland
Olaf, thanks very much for the info! I don't think there are any legal plants here in the US, so I've seen 0 of them....

I was basing my info on the opinion of the orchid registrar at the RHS and that of Braem (Orchid Digest 2004). I found a photo through google of Umatilla and it looks way different from intaniae.

However, isn't Ayub Parnata notorious for introducing artificial hybrids as 'new' species? Is that the case with sugiyamanum and Jogjae-posing-as-species?

Please keep in mind all my info is based on reading the works of others! I don't get out nearly enough...

--Stephen
 

adiaphane

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
506
Reaction score
0
Mahon said:
I have an idea that some of the Paphiopedilums that Ayub "finds" or "has",then there is something more to the story on the plant...

-PM
Que? I'm having a hard time following this sentence... please clarify.
 
M

Mahon

Guest
Rephrased (I am quite tired... sorry if I was unclear)

The validity of the Paph. species found by Ayub should be questioned... like Steve said, he may pass off hybrids as species... etc...

I don't want to get into details, but I recieved a Paph. hybrid instead of a Paph. species that I wanted. So I personally question Ayub's "new" species... I too heard of similar stories concerning Ayub.

-Pat
 

littlefrog

Hop-meister
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
68
Location
Mid Michigan
A friend of mine sent me some pictures of this, and it seems quite distinct from anything else I've seen. Kind of like a fuzzy stonei crossed with a roth. The flower segments (except for the pouch) and ovary are hirsute. I too am suspicious of many of the new species, and hate to make decisions based on pictures, but it looks pretty plausable to me. If it is a hybrid, it isn't one I've seen.

As of now, I'm pretty sure there have been no legal importations of intaniae into the USA. It isn't a blockbuster flower, although I suppose the collector who has to have one of each species would need one. I really can't see much point in breeding with it, but I suspect that won't stop anybody.
 

Latest posts

Top