Paph curtisii and superbiens - the great debate

[Leo Schordje]

and of course - the real issue is: Are the plants we call superbiens TODAY the same as the plants that were discribed as superbiens back in the 1800's when the description was written? It seems that what is sold as superbiens today, might not be a good match for the original description. This would not be the first orchid to have this sort of identity switch over time.

 

[Greenpaph]

I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.

Rick, I think you are talking about this one:

I bought it years ago as superbiens 'Mem. Clarence Schubert AM/AOS:

 

[SlipperFan]

It's lovely!

 

[Roy]

Peter, interesting flower, it looks like some of the early P. Goultenianums I've seen. Not really anything like a curtisii or superbiens.

 

[PaphMadMan]

Rick, I think you are talking about this one:

I bought it years ago as superbiens 'Mem. Clarence Schubert AM/AOS:

I hadn't seen a Mem. Clarence Schubert in years. Thanks for the reminder. I've seen early illustrations (like 1880s) of superbiens that looked like that and a couple photos. Perhaps our perception of superbiens has changed over time.

 

[Leo Schordje]

Thanks Peter,
Your photo complements the discussion and does support the idea that what we call superbiens has changed.

I hadn't seen a Mem. Clarence Schubert in years. Thanks for the reminder. I've seen early illustrations (like 1880s) of superbiens that looked like that and a couple photos. Perhaps our perception of superbiens has changed over time.

I definitely agree.

 

[Rick]

Then superbians is either a highly variable species (like villosum) or what we are presently calling superbians is essentially a new species with an incorrect label.oke:oke:

The concept Mem Clarence Shubert looks like a cross between lawrencianum and superbiens leaning more towards lawrencianum than what we presently call superbians. The difference between CS and Var curtsii and "var superbians" is so striking, then I don't understand how we can quibble about the differences between var curtsii, and "var superbians" as anything special.

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/sigmatopetalum/superbiens/index.html

From links to Matt Gore's old site are some pics of Reichenbach's 1880's illustrations of curtsii and suberbiens other than the big spots shown for the illustration of "superbiens" I don't think either illustration takes after Mem Clarence Shubert that much. The illustration of C. curtsii is a dead ringer for present day superbiens. I think Mem. CS looks more like the cross between sukhakulii and curtsii (Oriental Spice) Maybe Mem. CS is actually a hybrid of dayanum and superbiens rather than a variety of it (anyone have a picture of Paph. George Kittel?).

 

[Rick]

Peter, interesting flower, it looks like some of the early P. Goultenianums I've seen. Not really anything like a curtisii or superbiens.

That's a cross of superbiens and callosum.

I agree. Also look at Oriental Spice (superbiens and sukhakulii)

Some how dayanum is attached to Mem. Clarence Shubert. Maybe a complex?

 

[Rick]

Rooting around in the archives, I can't find any valid taxonomic reference to a Paph. superbiens var dayanum. However in the 1860's Paph. dayanum went by the name Cyp. superbiens var. dayanum.

All of a sudden in a fairly recent treatise of Paph judging metrics (which I found googling) I found reference to several awarded clones of something called "Paph. (superbiens var. dayanum) with one of about 6 awarded clones called Mem. Clarence Schubert. Not sure why the species name was both italicized and in parenthesis.

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/paphawards.xls

Heck!! It looks like from this document that Paph superbiens var dayanum is being recognized as the synonym for dayanum (not superbiens!) Since the original cross of dayanum and superbiens was made in the 1880's that gives about 130 years to screw up the labels enough so that Mem. Clarence Schubert may actually be Paph George Kittel

 

[Rick]

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphprimaries/Lindenia1898(14)638(Gowerianum).jpg

Here's an ancient illustration of curtsii X lawrencianum (Gowerianum)

I think it also captures Clarence Schubert pretty well.

 

[SlipperKing]

Thanks Peter, this is indeed the plant/ flower that I ask about. The interesting points of this clone in comparison with Cribb's discription and illustration from his first and second editions is the overall paler flower and the warting of the petals. The Shubert clone having far fewer spots but much larger ones. The petal tips don't have the partial twist in the Shubert as well.
Now, for the P. superbiens var. dayanum 'Mem Clarence Shubert' that I originally ask about, may of come about because of the original discription of the species dayanum. Again, in Cribb's book the early discriptions of Paph dayanum where called Cyp.superbiens var dayanum.

 

[tenman]

I found another old rendering of 'superbiens', listed as : Paphiopedilum superbiens (as syn.Cypripedium superbiens)Illustration in:H. G. Reichenbach:"Xenia Orchidacea"vol. 2 fig 103(1874), at:

http://tinyurl.com/luesh7

From these three renderings it is clear that what we are calling superbiens corresponds more closely to the species identified in the 1870's as curtisii, which is more apparently a distinct species from these illustrations, and that the original 'superbiens' either doesn't exist anymore in cultivation or perhaps has become mislabelled through the years, but clearly does not exist labelled 'curtisii'. Probably some of the plants in the current group are hybrids, either of these two species or with a third. There is a good deal of variation but all the plants and pics I see seem to be dominated by curtisii. Interestingly enough, Koopowitz reverses his types between his two OD checklists, 1995 and 2000 (he pulled a similar switch with philippinense and roebbelinii, showing a true philippinense in 1995 - very distinct from roebbelinii - but showing roebbelinii for both in 2000). The pics in Birk's book show distinctly different staminodes and so do the 1870's drawings. I find the conclusion, based on the 19th century drawings and the different chromosome numbers, inescapable that they are indeed different species, with all of the ones we see now being curtisii (or a hybrid of it and superbiens or another species) and superbiens being a 'lost' species.

 

[Rick]

Rick

I don't know if you were able to follow or open all the links I posted, but what seems to have happened is that someone presented (1984?) what they thought was a Paph dayanum (with amazing color) for judging under the archaic synonym Paph. superbiens var dayanum. The plant ultimately was the awarded Mem. Clarence Schubert, which obviously is a hybrid. It looks like a hybrid with dayanum influence, and is very similar in appearance to the suk/curtsii hybrid Oriental Spice. Maybe it was just a matter of an ancient illegible tag, or maybe they thought they had the "true" dayanum just as we have been claiming it was the "true" superbiens.

However the ancient 1880 illustrations of Reichenbach for curtsii and superbiens really aren't that far off (especially the illustration labeled as Cyp. curtsii) the present day descriptions and photos of Leo's superbiens flowers. It does not appear that what was described in 1880 is different from what we now think is superbiens or curtsii.

 

[Rick]

I found another old rendering of 'superbiens', listed as : Paphiopedilum superbiens (as syn.Cypripedium superbiens)Illustration in:H. G. Reichenbach:"Xenia Orchidacea"vol. 2 fig 103(1874), at:

http://tinyurl.com/luesh7

From these three renderings it is clear that what we are calling superbiens corresponds more closely to the species identified in the 1870's as curtisii, which is more apparently a distinct species from these illustrations, and that the original 'superbiens' either doesn't exist anymore in cultivation or perhaps has become mislabelled through the years, but clearly does not exist labelled 'curtisii'. Probably some of the plants in the current group are hybrids, either of these two species or with a third. There is a good deal of variation but all the plants and pics I see seem to be dominated by curtisii. Interestingly enough, Koopowitz reverses his types between his two OD checklists, 1995 and 2000 (he pulled a similar switch with philippinense and roebbelinii, showing a true philippinense in 1995 - very distinct from roebbelinii - but showing roebbelinii for both in 2000). The pics in Birk's book show distinctly different staminodes and so do the 1870's drawings. I find the conclusion, based on the 19th century drawings and the different chromosome numbers, inescapable that they are indeed different species, with all of the ones we see now being curtisii (or a hybrid of it and superbiens or another species) and superbiens being a 'lost' species.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paphiopedilum_superbiens_Orchi_05.jpg

Here's a picture of a long petaled relatively large spotted "superbiens" that is closer to the ancient Reichenbach illustrations. It's a color photo, so it can't be too lost to science.

 

[tenman]

Rick
However the ancient 1880 illustrations of Reichenbach for curtsii and superbiens really aren't that far off (especially the illustration labeled as Cyp. curtsii) the present day descriptions and photos of Leo's superbiens flowers. It does not appear that what was described in 1880 is different from what we now think is superbiens or curtsii.

Huh?? Maybe I'm not seeing the same pics. The 1870's drawings show two species almost as different as night and day, and the only similarity to what we have today is to curtisii.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paphiopedilum_superbiens_Orchi_05.jpg

Here's a picture of a long petaled relatively large spotted "superbiens" that is closer to the ancient Reichenbach illustrations. It's a color photo, so it can't be too lost to science.

Yes, closer toi the illustration of curtisii. It bears very little resemblance to the 'superbiens'. And, no, curtisii isn't lost. We don't have anything that looks like Reichenbach's drawing that we call superbiens.

 

[Rick]

We don't have anything that looks like Reichenbach's drawing that we call superbiens.

And probably never will. It's a relatively primitive, 130 year old, ARTIST RENDITION, of a plant of unknown origin (They thought it might have come from Java). Reichenbach could have been low on purple, or got tired of drawing all the spots. Even the illustration of curtsii lacks the detail and colors of modern illustrations. Also keep in mind that Reich. described "superbiens" in 1855 and "curtsii" in 1882 almost 30 years later. Maybe his artists skills improved over 30 years, or if he drew them at the same time, then maybe he was going off of memory of a plant that died 30 years earlier. The basic premise of suberbiens having longer somewhat curly petals is there, but I think that's about all you are going to get from ancient drawings.

The written description is probably more accurate than the drawings, but even then we are talking about a time when people believed in mermaids and sea monsters. So I think more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid.

 

[tenman]

The written description is probably more accurate than the drawings, but even then we are talking about a time when people believed in mermaids and sea monsters. So I think more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid.

I would love to read the original descriptions. Can anyone who has them forward them to me or post them? The problem with "more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid" is that we are simply taking plants which fit our preconceived notions of what a certain species should be, and therefore, simply falling ionto the trap of self-fulfilling prophecy. In on similar case, Guido Braem discovered upon a fresh look at the original descriptions of Paph.glanduliferum that what we were passing off as that species didn't in fact fit the description and were not that species after all.

It is entirely possible the drawings are correct as well. The flower depicted is closer to something like sukhakulii with its large spots than to curtisii. I can not in good conscience reconcile the drawings and the chromosome numbers at all. They are two separate species and we don't have anything like the original superbiens (which may itself have been a natural hybrid of curtisii and some other species such as sukhakulii for all we know and now be extinct in the wild). The fact that we can't find a 'superbiens' now which matches the drawing does not invalidate the original description.

 

[SlipperKing]

You both are makng very good points. Didn't Leo start this thread? where is he?

 

[Leo Schordje]

You both are makng very good points. Didn't Leo start this thread? where is he?

I'm Lurking in the weeds! :evil: I have been following the thread. Tennis and Rick, yourself and the rest are helping me solidify my thoughts.

I'm leaning towards the idea that the superbiens described in 1855 is no longer in cultivation. What we call superbiens today should have its own name. It is clearly closer to curtisii than anything else. If collection locations could be identified, it may warrant either subspecies or species status. This means there are four species that make up the curtisii-superbiens complex. The plant currently traded around as superbiens, the one currently traded around as curtisii, and the one lost to cultivation that was called superbiens in 1855. And the fourth being the species sold by Ray Rands and photographed in one of the late 1970's articles by Jack Fowlie as the 'true' curtisii. It too seems to be lost to cultivation.

But this is not a strong opinion on my part, one of the other scenarios may actually turn out to be a better explaination. I am enjoying the thread and have really appreciated the links to the reference photos. Thank you everyone for that.
Leo

 

[paphioboy]

Out of curiosity, I looked up this thread again and realised that a few pictures I have seen recently of the supposedly éxtinct'/not in cultivation superbiens (original one in the description) looks the same as the awarded clone, but very different from the regular perception of a superbiens or curtisii..

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...602816383086662_1699602653_n.jpg&size=720,960

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...602816036420030_1504783395_n.jpg&size=720,960

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uvmTLubmk.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rEoacHiyp.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C_z9pE4ON.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg