Paph callosum fma viridiflorum

[DirGo]

Another albino species in flower, bought as "small type"
Not the best flower shape, but I think it's cute, and different, and I like it, so it's a keeper for me.

 

[terryros]

Thank you for showing that. In my post today about Paph Maudiae 'Bunkhouse', which is an albino with albino callosum as a parent, I decided to ignore the controversy about whether callosum should be called crossii, which Dr. Braem's group is supporting. This is based on Cypripedium crossii Morren being described in 1865 whereas Cypripedium callosum was described a year later. I have no expertise to champion this view but note that Kew still gives callossum priority.

In an article in the Australian Orchid Review, Braem includes the following phot, which I have screen captured from the publicly available PDF, showing an albino Paph crossii forma viridiflorum!

 

[GuRu]

Another albino species in flower, bought as "small type".................

The albino form of P. callosum isn't easy to obtain, I think .... so nice to see it in flower here no matter if the flower is 'best quality or not. So I think the same way as you, Dirk. I'm lucky to grow one of these, too (at least the name is written on the tag) and time will tell how the flower looks like.

.......In my post today about Paph Maudiae 'Bunkhouse', which is an albino with albino callosum as a parent, I decided to ignore the controversy about whether callosum should be called crossii, which Dr. Braem's group is supporting. This is based on Cypripedium crossii Morren being described in 1865 whereas Cypripedium callosum was described a year later. I have no expertise to champion this view but note that Kew still gives callossum priority.

In my eyes there is no controversy between P. callosum versus P. crossi because Dr. Braem stand very lonesome with his sight/opinion.

 

[Ozpaph]

worth space on any bench

 

[Guldal]

I prefer your flower to the one in Braem's photo, Dirk, were it not for the defective dorsal.

Let's hope, it's not a genetic aberration, that shows itself in every flowering - but just an expression of cultural issues, when the bud developed, or pure (mis) happenstance! Well, only time will show!

 

[Guldal]

In my eyes there is no controversy between P. callosum versus P. crossi because Dr. Braem stand very lonesome with his sight/opinion.

This is, I guess, a really decent and very politely understated way of saying, that this is a case where the otherwise, that is in a professional context, levelheaded and sensible Dr. Braem 'goes really ballistic in a totally idiosyncratic manner'?

 

[DirGo]

I prefer your flower to the one in Braem's photo, Dirk, were it not for the defective dorsal.

Growing indoor, I have to pick up my plants to water them and put them back in the rack after that. Whenever I change the orientation towards the LED lights while the flower is opening, I end up with a wonky flower. I am sure it will be fixed next flowering.

 

[Roth]

Well in short, as a top taxonomist of the whole World and Universe, that's the publication about the priority of crossii vs. callosum:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266316253_The_intriguing_case_of_Cypripedium_crossii_Morren_its_priority_over_Cypripedium_callosum_Reichenbach_fil_and_its_transfer_to_the_genus_Paphiopedilum_Pfitzer

What would have been amazingly great was that the author had noticed that the illustration of Cypripedium crossii he uses on the 6th page is an artificial hybrid of callosum x fairrieanum, called Juno.

That would have given more credibility to this publication and some others...