paph. Delliana or paph. Annabellchen??

[Candace]

I've got a first bloom seedling of paph. delenatii x paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum just opening now.

Is paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum the same as paph liemianum? If so, the cross would be paph. annabell chen??

From what it looks like on the web, the flower opening looks nothing like Delliana...

I've already got an another Annabell Chen opening( from Ratcliff) so I'll be able to compare the two shortly. Anyone have a decent picture of an Annabell Chen? Although my other one bloomed last year, I didn't take a photo and I don't remember what it looked like. I didn't find any photos when I googled. I'll probably only keep one as I don't have the room for several of every cross I've got. I thought I was buying a Delliana, but I THINK I ended up with another annabell chen. Thought I'd ask the taxonomy specialists.

 

[TADD]

Did you answer your own question in there somewhere? I believe it is a Annabellchen.

 

[SlipperFan]

Hmmm, I think chamberlainianum = victoria-regina, and that liemianum is a separate species.
http://slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/index.html

 

[Candace]

No, I need to know if paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum is the same as paph liemianum. Then, my question will be answered.

 

[Heather]

I think it is not the same, Candace.

 

[SlipperFan]

I also think the spelling should be chamberlainianum, not chamberlianum. Sometimes tags are wrong...

 

[Candace]

I think it is not the same, Candace.

Then, theoretically I should have a Delliana, but it doesn't look like ones on the net. Mine will have much more of the spotting. The chamberlainianum was the capsule parent, so that's probably why...

Thanks for the link, Slipperfan, I'll have to bookmark it.

 

[NYEric]

Heavy duty resource, thanx.

 

[slippertalker]

Paph chamberlainianum= Paph victoria-reginae

Paph chamberlainianum var liemianum = Paph liemianum

Most taxonomists have seperated Paph liemianum from Paph chamberlainianum and it seems to breed differently. In my view, it is distinct and a very attractive species.
Paph liemianum also has a close relationship to Paph primulinum and its variety purpurascens, they could easily be considered as an albinistic population of liemianum.

 

[Candace]

O.K. you guys are confusing me with opposite answers Who's right here? I think I'm with slippertalker here and that chamberlainianum var liemianum and Paph liemianum are the same species...

 

[smartie2000]

I would agree with slippertalker

 

[Leo Schordje]

Yes,
chamberlainianum var. liemianum = Paph liemianum (as Guido would say "Full Stop")

separate issue
Paph chamberlainianum = Paph victoria-reginae

another separate issue:

growth characteristics and breeding characteristics says
Paph primulinum and P. primulinum purpurescens are distinct from Paph liemianum, I'll box with anyone who collapses the two together. oke:
They may be somewhat closely related, but they are distinct. Primulinum is a dwarf growing species compared to the rest. Paph liemianum grows large, and has long purple pigmented hairs along the leaf base edges, all other cochlopetalums including primulinum have much shorter hairs with no pigment on the leaf edges. Paph liemianum has normal color genes that breed in hybrids similar to the rest of the group. Paph primulinum and primulinum purpurescens have a color effect that emphasizes the yellow background, at the expense of overlaying colors. To my eye both forms of primulinum dilute color in hybrids, normal yellow form more so than purpurescens form. Though I don't know if the effect is due to supression of gene expression or if it is due to some other cause. The end result is that primulinum hybrids has less purple and brown and a stronger yellow background. No way are liemianum & primulinum the same species.
(b.t.w. those of you who have compact growing liemianums, first bloom seedlings, you just need to keep growing them well. Each year they will get bigger, especially if you don't divide them. Eventually they will bulk up to the same size range as a medium size glaucophyllum. They are more compact than a well grown victoria-reginae or moquettianum).

 

[Candace]

Thanks for the clarification. I just love all this name confusion. I guess I've got two Annabellchens after all. Now I have to remember to label the tags correctly.

 

[slippertalker]

I agree that Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum are distinct from each other, but my understanding is that Paph primulinum grows closer to Paph liemianum than other members of the cochlepetalum group. Obviously all of this group have a close relationship......

Whether Paph primulinum is an isolated population derived from Paph liemianum would be an interesting question to delve into. I do believe that Paph primulinum itself is much more compact and tends to have smaller flowers than it's var. pupurascens which is a diluted flower that is intermediate between Paph primulinum and its cochlopetalum ancestor.

Paph primulinum is obviously albinistic, and as such doesn't show any color in the foliage. Paph primulinum v. purpurascens gives hybrids that are larger and colored different than Paph primulinum.

The others in this group are all larger in growth habit and also their flowers are larger.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

Leo said it all......I see very few similarities between primulinum and liemianum...personally, I think liemianum may be the nicest of all the cochlopetalum species, if only for the foliage...Take care, Eric

 

[NYEric]

Wouldn't all this be nice w/ photos to show the differences!

 

[slippertalker]

I researched this further and found the documentation that I had remembered from years ago. This is from James H. Asher published in the Orchid Digest in Sept 1980. Here is the verbatim listing regarding primulinum:

"The chance seeding on outcrops of volcanic rock with a basic reaction, simulating limestone, produced an inbreeding colony of escaped racial stock of P. chamberlainianum subsp liemiana across the valley from its normal home on limestone. This colony underwent albinistic degenerative changes and anthocyanin production defects consequent to the limited amount of racial stock accidentally introduced there and tremendous inbreeding. Therefore, technically, this plant is an albinistically degerate form, lacking anthocyanin production ability, and was transferred to Paphiopedilum chamberlainianum subsp liemiana forma primulinum in Orchid Digest, vo. 37, pp.102-105, 1973, and two varieties were names, the one deficient in anthocyanins, var flavescens, and the one lacking in them entirely, var flavum"

Of course, since then, Paph primulinum was split from the above concept and they are referred to as Paph primulinum and Paph primulinum var purpurascens.

My understanding is that Fowlie and Asher actually visited these locations in northern Sumatra to understand the relationship between Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. Since Paph primulinum is an inbred aberrant form of its ancestor, it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see differences in flower and plant morphology. The relatively close geographical location certainly leads to suggestions of a close relationship.

More rebuttal?oke:

I would like to hear if anyone has different information....

 

[Candace]

I notice Matt Gore has some great photos of the plants mentioned, on his website.

 

[Leo Schordje]

Not trying to create conflict, but the 1980 work by Asher was just the start of the modern scientific study involved in this group. Please read some of the works published after 2000. Try Koopowitz, or Braem, or even my least favorite, Cribb. All base their more modern conclusions on the ground work done by the likes of Fowlei and Asher. By the way, Asher by training was a mammalian developmental embryologist, not a taxonomist. Fowlie was a dentist, not a taxonomist. Both gentlemen were great observers, but neither were really taxonomists. Few of Fowlie's species descriptions have withstood the test of time. I do read his articles with great attention to his comments about habitat. His "Awash in the Bitter Sea" series in OD was fabulous.
I personally can not weigh in deeper into this taxonomic debate, because I am not a taxonomist, and would simply end up merely quoting the above authors. Braem's last couple books pretty much say it all in my opinion.
Leo

 

[Roy]

Leo, you have again said all that needs to be said. So many arguments occur on orchids when " popular figures" in the orchid world promote their theories, with illustrations, in widely distributed publications and because of their notoriety, have many believing what they say is gospel and the actual 'expert' finds it difficult to get the correct message across. This where the 'true' name gets lost and false hybrids registered.
Thanks Leo.