Paph eliotianum vs. paph rothschildianum

Discussion in 'Taxonomy' started by AdamD, Dec 6, 2013.

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

  1. Dec 6, 2013 #1

    AdamD

    AdamD

    AdamD

    Catasetinae Crazed

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Elsberry, MO USA
    Can anyone shed light on this? Why the distinction of a new species for this plant in particular, and is there more than one clone (Penn Valley)?
     
  2. Dec 6, 2013 #2
    I just saw that cross advertised on Ebay. To the best of my knowledge, "elliotianum" is just rothchildianum.
     
  3. Dec 6, 2013 #3

    AdamD

    AdamD

    AdamD

    Catasetinae Crazed

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Elsberry, MO USA
  4. Dec 6, 2013 #4

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    SlipperFan

    Addicted

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,582
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Is it the name given to rothschildianum before rothschildianum became accepted? That would make sense for the "history" part.
     
  5. Dec 6, 2013 #5

    naoki

    naoki

    naoki

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    The identity of P. elliotianum doesn't seem to be resolved yet. According to Braem and Cirron's book, they don't think they are synonymous. The confusing part is that the type herbarium sheet in kew is clearly P. rothschildianum, but the original description was not based on this specimen. Braem considers that P. ellitottianum is not synonymous to P. rothschildianum, and it is a lost species. Maybe 'Pen Valley' was mis-identified as P. elliotianum when it was awarded?
     
  6. Dec 6, 2013 #6

    Scott Ware

    Scott Ware

    Scott Ware

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    They may not currently be considered synonyms, but to keep the matter as confusing as possible, several Paph. rothschildianum plants were presented in the past to judges as Paph. elliottianum and were awarded as such.
     
  7. Dec 6, 2013 #7

    Tom499

    Tom499

    Tom499

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
  8. Dec 6, 2013 #8

    naoki

    naoki

    naoki

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    That seems to be Phillip Cribb's view. Braem's view is somewhat interesting (although it is not completely evidence based argument). P. elliotianum were separately described by 3 different people when 1000 or so P. ellitianum were brought into Europe by Sander. 3 people thought that it is different from P. rothschildianum, therefore they published the description. One of the three is Reichenbach, who described P. rothschildianum. So Braem thought that it is unlikely that these 3 experts make the same mistake independently. Obviously we won't know which view is correct, but it is more fun to think that P. elliotianum will be re-discovered in Philippine some day!
     
  9. Dec 7, 2013 #9

    Paphluvr

    Paphluvr

    Paphluvr

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Base of the Thumb, Michigan
    P. elliottianum vs rothschildianum

    According to the Catherine Cash book "The Slipper Orchids", © 1991 by Timber Press, Inc.

    "Cribb (1987) has effectively destroyed every argument for retention of the binomial P. elliottianum (O'Brien) Stein, in correct usage. In light of his evidence, growers may wish to relabel such specimens as P. rothschildianum."

    However, realize that this was published 22 years ago.
     
  10. Dec 19, 2013 #10
    elliotianum vs roth

    I was there 50 years ago when Norris Powell and Ray Rand brought in elliotianum. It was a big whoopi-do then as to whether it was Roth or not. Many people paid a lot of money for the "new" species. And I think that has why the name has lasted for so long, pride goes a long ways. Even then the argument was that at best it was a var of roth. Now with genetic testing we know for sure that 99.9% were pure roth and the other .1% was adductum. If you point out differences on one and then on the other it makes a fun shell game. This all came to my memory a couple of weeks ago when a plant was posted of Roth x Elliotianum 'fox valley'.
    I bought the plant because it brought back some fond memories of my early paph years and all the people I knew. It is a great pure-roth plant and a piece of orchid history. Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce about the fun days you missed in orchids, well almost, you do have kovachii don't you???
     
  11. Dec 19, 2013 #11
    Penn valley bought their plant directly from Norris Powell. There may be more plants and tags sold with that name attached, but there is only one real elliotianum 'penn valley' AM/AOS. Personally been with Norris through the events.
     
  12. Dec 21, 2013 #12

    tenman

    tenman

    tenman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes, and realize that Cribb is an idiot and not an authority for anything.
     
  13. Dec 21, 2013 #13

    Trithor

    Trithor

    Trithor

    Chico (..... the clown)

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,725
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sandton, South Africa
    That is a harsh statement, and an attack which in my opinion does not have a place on this forum
     

Share This Page



arrow_white