Paph. leucochilum in bloom

[setaylien]

Here is a photo of a Paph. leucochilum that I currently have in flower. It is not exceptional in flower quality as the spotting pattern, at least on this flowering, is a bit uneven. However, it is a true leucochilum: zero spots on the pouch.

 

[Guldal]

Nice! Might we see it in a more natural light?

 

[setaylien]

Nice! Might we see it in a more natural light?

Guldal, I realized when I took this photo that the flash altered the colour of the flower in an unusual way. The real colour is a soft, creamy yellow just a little more so than ivory with dark purple spotting. In this photo it looks rather green! I still posted it because it is close to a true species leucochilum with a totally unspotted pouch. Some leucochilums are light yellow rather than white; some suspect this may be due to hybridization that has occurred in the wild environment.
When I have time to set it up in a more normal light I will try again.

 

[Ozpaph]

I like the markings and was wondering about the 'butter yellow' colour.

 

[Guldal]

It's a lovely flower...natural type leuco as opposed to the linebred types (no value judgement on my behalf - I love the best from both!)

 

[setaylien]

It's a lovely flower...natural type leuco as opposed to the linebred types (no value judgement on my behalf - I love the best from both!)

Thanks, Guldal! Here's another photo of the plant in more normal light: no flash.

 

[Guldal]

Even more lovely, so to speak irl (in real light)

 

[werner.freitag]

I am thinking the spots on the pouch are not the main difference between godefroyae and leucochilum. Yes, normally godefroyae has more and bigger ones, leucochilum zero or a few small ones.
But there are two base colours, whitish and yellowish and yellowish goes for leucochilum.
Thats at least my impression from collected plants.
A problem is that we normally dont know where exactely the plants came from.
Breeding makes them nicer, but allows no clarification either.

 

[setaylien]

I am thinking the spots on the pouch are not the main difference between godefroyae and leucochilum. Yes, normally godefroyae has more and bigger ones, leucochilum zero or a few small ones.
But there are two base colours, whitish and yellowish and yellowish goes for leucochilum.
Thats at least my impression from collected plants.
A problem is that we normally dont know where exactely the plants came from.
Breeding makes them nicer, but allows no clarification either.

You have, no doubt, seen many plants both nursery grown and wild collected in Thailand so you may be right about the two base colours of these paphs. According to the original botanical description Paph. godefroyae applies to both forms since the holotype had a pure, unspotted pouch and was not called var. leucochilum. Today, however, we have a much wider experience of the plants than Godefroy-Lebeuf.

 

[Guldal]

According to the original botanical description Paph. godefroyae applies to both forms since the holotype had a pure, unspotted pouch and was not called var. leucochilum.

Braem has once and for all discarded the above notion, that originates from Ph. Cribb, as utter nonsense, based on a misreading or mistranslation of Godefroy's description of the type of P. godefroyae. Braem himself, being fluent in several of the European main languages, has translated Godefroy's French original into English: "On the inside, the pouch [of P. godefroyae] is covered with nice chocolate-brown dots, on the outside with brighter spots, whereby their number diminishes near the top." (cit. after Braem et al., 'The Genus Paphiopedilum, 2nd Edition', 2016, p. 126)
In Braem's description of var. leucochillum, he reaches back and quotes Master's from 1894: "... the clear creamy white unspotted face of the labellum is a characteristic feature of this variety. The staminode and the interior of the pouch are profusely spotted with purple, but the prominent part of the lip is altogether unspotted." (cit. after ibid., p. 128). The description of this variety can't come as a surprise as the epithet 'leucochilum' is latinized greek for 'whitelipped'.
And pertaining the colour of the flowers of P godefroyae, Braem describes it as "white to pale yellow" - and I can't remember having seen any other current botanist disagree with him!

 

[setaylien]

Braem has once and for all discarded the above notion, that originates from Ph. Cribb, as utter nonsense, based on a misreading or mistranslation of Godefroy's description of the type of P. godefroyae. Braem himself, being fluent in several of the European main languages, has translated Godefroy's French original into English: "On the inside, the pouch [of P. godefroyae] is covered with nice chocolate-brown dots, on the outside with brighter spots, whereby their number diminishes near the top." (cit. after Braem et al., 'The Genus Paphiopedilum, 2nd Edition', 2016, p. 126)
In Braem's description of var. leucochillum, he reaches back and quotes Master's from 1894: "... the clear creamy white unspotted face of the labellum is a characteristic feature of this variety. The staminode and the interior of the pouch are profusely spotted with purple, but the prominent part of the lip is altogether unspotted." (cit. after ibid., p. 128). The description of this variety can't come as a surprise as the epithet 'leucochilum' is latinized greek for 'whitelipped'.
And pertaining the colour of the flowers of P godefroyae, Braem describes it as "white to pale yellow" - and I can't remember having seen any other current botanist disagree with him!

I have to admit I was following Phillip Cribb when I made the preceding statement; it could be he was mistaken. I have found that Guido Braem, astute as he is in many respects, is not always reliable (see his research paper with Senghas in which he proposed changing the name of Paph. callosum to P. crossii based on Morren's very incomplete and inaccurate description). As human beings, we are all fallible even the most learned. Thanks for your input, Guldal!

 

[Guldal]

Guido Braem ... is not always reliable (see his research paper with Senghas in which he proposed changing the name of Paph. callosum to P. crossii based on Morren's very incomplete and inaccurate description).

With regard to P. callosum vs. P. crossii: this is an instance, where I find Braem inexplicably and thoroughly idiosyncratic. Here I find Cribb's arguments against Braem's rather outrageous proposition razor sharp and totally convincing. I, like you - and probably the rest of the world, thus stick to P. callosum.
In all respect, though, it must be said, that Braem openly and clearly presents the basis for his inferences for any one to see and argue with.
Cribb, by the way, has his little foibles too: said godefroyae-definition; his rather speculative interpretation of the ancestry of P. mohrianum; and a few others, that I remember noticing, but which I at present can't recall.

At the end of the day, they, actually, in most instances are in accord - an acknowledgement that might not come easy, maybe only grudgingly, to the two learned and highly esteemed gentlemen involved!

 

[werner.freitag]

very good discussion !

I am still thinking that more information of habitats ( from collectors and local growers ) would make descriptions more accurate.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

'I think, therefore I am':

I find it fascinating that one can differentiate a species just by color of one part of the flower (in this case the pouch) and calling it a different name completely. And then of course, the placement of warts on top (superior), middle or lower (inferior) will be sufficient to reorganize new names (like the callosum complex). Let's not forget the angle of the petal stance too (pardolopetalum types). Yet in all these cases, the flowers are very similar in all other aspects (even the plants are similar in leaf shape and patterns).

If we accept all these to be sufficient enough to defend the current taxonomy of species, one can argue that the albine versions of those species would be considered rightfully species themselves. Or for that matter, all sub varieties of venustums with all the different placement of spots and red color distribution can each be given speciation status.

But alas, we (myself included) follow published data faithfully and depend on our experts to guide us. This ultimately means that we must (or cautiously) accept that all data we have now true until proven otherwise with a new review. This means the undeniable complacent acceptance of contradictions and controversies.

Cest la vie!