N
niveum
Guest
Hi,
these photos show my friend´s plant.
As you know, Braem&Chiron in "Paphiopedilum" write about this species:
"this spec. is known only from the the type material and the description and illustration in Blume´s Rumphia. Although the description there is quite detailed it causes confusion because there are no plants available that quite answer to that description. Pfitzer recognised two species - Paph. glanduliferum and Paph. praestans - and differentiated between them by the morphology of the staminod shield. ..... Staminodal morphology is now considered one of the best characteristics. .... It was Garay (1995) who first reviewed the problem in more detail, and who came to the conclusion - mainly on the basis of staminode morphology - that Paph. glanduliferum is indeed different from Paph. praestans and may not have rediscovered since the type was collected by Zippel in New Guinea".
The description of Paph. glanduliferum, translated from the Blume original:
Gynostemium short, stamen or staminode projecting more dorsally and exteriorly with two anthers being more evident than in allied species. Staminode arched upward with depressions above, hairy, the front elongated into a keeled, glabrous beak; the fertile portion of the gynostemium with lateral edges turned upward and basally narrowed into a keel, apically enlarged into two curved, lateral, short petal- likelobes with sub- apical anthers toward the stigma.
Is it a Paph. glanduliferum, as described by Blume?
Peter
these photos show my friend´s plant.
As you know, Braem&Chiron in "Paphiopedilum" write about this species:
"this spec. is known only from the the type material and the description and illustration in Blume´s Rumphia. Although the description there is quite detailed it causes confusion because there are no plants available that quite answer to that description. Pfitzer recognised two species - Paph. glanduliferum and Paph. praestans - and differentiated between them by the morphology of the staminod shield. ..... Staminodal morphology is now considered one of the best characteristics. .... It was Garay (1995) who first reviewed the problem in more detail, and who came to the conclusion - mainly on the basis of staminode morphology - that Paph. glanduliferum is indeed different from Paph. praestans and may not have rediscovered since the type was collected by Zippel in New Guinea".
The description of Paph. glanduliferum, translated from the Blume original:
Gynostemium short, stamen or staminode projecting more dorsally and exteriorly with two anthers being more evident than in allied species. Staminode arched upward with depressions above, hairy, the front elongated into a keeled, glabrous beak; the fertile portion of the gynostemium with lateral edges turned upward and basally narrowed into a keel, apically enlarged into two curved, lateral, short petal- likelobes with sub- apical anthers toward the stigma.
Is it a Paph. glanduliferum, as described by Blume?
Peter