P.K.Hansen
Well-Known Member
Nice large flower on this one. Some imperfections in the dorsal, but overall I really like it
We can always argue about the name
We can always argue about the name
Last edited:
I think nobody except Guido Braem would argue about the name...and however pellucidly clear I usually find him, in this case it's difficult not to find his insisting upon the P. crossii epithet rather than P. callosum somewhat idiosyncratic. In this debate Phillip Cribb's refutation of Braem's position appears to me so much more logically consistent.We can always argue about the name
This clearly demonstrates, that even our highly esteemed and revered Dr. Braem can come to his senses!... he actually asked for pics of this plant today, and he called it callosum
I'm just waiting for (NYC)Eric to comment on and make snide remarks about your wall!Sorry about the background
I have read the research paper by Braem & Senghas and, as far as I can tell, they made a very weak argument for calling this species "crossii". The most important consideration is whether or not the botanist, Morren, provided a useful and accurate drawing of the plant and flower: he did not. He also did not provide a detailed botanical description. He also stated that the provenance of the plant was "Peru". Given all of these inaccuracies, there is no reason to call this orchid "Paphiopedilum crossii".Nice large flower on this one. Some imperfections in the dorsal, but overall I really like it
We can always argue about the name
Enter your email address to join: