Second blooming.
Paph superbiens v. curtisii
- Thread starter bulolo
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Nice! Might we see the plant in toto?
another one with good colour
That's a very good P. superbiens, no question with that parentage. But I'm wondering why you named this thread 'Paph superbiens v. curtisii'? Because neither flower nor tag show any hints of v. curtisii.
Well, I don't wonder...actually I've renamed all my superbiens and superbiens var. curtisii to plainly P. curtisii. This after the real superbiens was reintroduced into cultivation and not least into the litterature - and in my view killed off the confusion about these species. See f.ex. this very elucidating post by Olaf (click on 'Click to expand' below to see the post in its entirety):
Last edited:
Or this earlier very illustrative post by Slipperking, where the two species are photographed side by side for a clear comparison:
Whether you choose to taxonomically place these within the concept of superbiens as a variety (as bulolo does) or as a separate species in its own right, might depend on, whether you are temperamentally most inclined to lump or to spread (I'm sure one could find valid arguments for both). One thing is for certain: the reappearence of the 'true superbiens' might cause a bit of havoc, when it comes to the registry of hybrids!
I've never before been able to make head nor tail of all the conflicting and mutually contradictory descriptions of superbiens vs curtisii, but the difference is now clear as crystal - and also the fact, that plants that for decades have passed as superbiens actually have been curtisii!
Whether you choose to taxonomically place these within the concept of superbiens as a variety (as bulolo does) or as a separate species in its own right, might depend on, whether you are temperamentally most inclined to lump or to spread (I'm sure one could find valid arguments for both). One thing is for certain: the reappearence of the 'true superbiens' might cause a bit of havoc, when it comes to the registry of hybrids!
Btw. Bulolo: nice, well grown plant! And, oh, that foliage!
NYEric
Well-Known Member
I think, though others here disagree, that the foliage separates superbiens v. curtsii, there is a bluish tint to the leaves, that this has.
Jens, thanks for your explanations, but to be honest.....I'm still confused.
Before I wrote my post I had a look at KEW’s Plant List and they accept only Paphiopedium superbiens as a valid name. See here Paphiopedilum superbiens. Paph. curtisii is a synonym. See here Paphiopedilum curtisii. Furthermore I had a cursory glimpse at Stephen’s site and I think the photos there show ‘superbiens’ and ‘curtisi’ vice versa to Rick’s photos Paph superbiens + curtisii To make matters worse in the photo section of Slipperorchid.info are two paintings of Paph superbiens and Paph curtisii and they are – at least in my eyes - according to Rick’s photos . The link to the photo of Olaf shows only two different curtisii.
Before I wrote my post I had a look at KEW’s Plant List and they accept only Paphiopedium superbiens as a valid name. See here Paphiopedilum superbiens. Paph. curtisii is a synonym. See here Paphiopedilum curtisii. Furthermore I had a cursory glimpse at Stephen’s site and I think the photos there show ‘superbiens’ and ‘curtisi’ vice versa to Rick’s photos Paph superbiens + curtisii To make matters worse in the photo section of Slipperorchid.info are two paintings of Paph superbiens and Paph curtisii and they are – at least in my eyes - according to Rick’s photos . The link to the photo of Olaf shows only two different curtisii.
Last edited:
You have to open the whole of the quoted post by Olaf for it to make any sense! You do this by pressing on 'Click to expand' below in the quotation-window - and, tiens voilà, you will be able to read it all and see all the photos, including an old illustration of the typical superbiens flower!
O.K. Jens now I think it's clear and hopefully will keep it in mind. The linked paintings on slipperochid.info in my post show P. curtisii and P. superbiens correctly. Only some of the photos there may be confusing perhaps should be changed. Furthermore in this case I wouldn't go conform with KEW's Plant List which accepts only Paph. superbiens.
I am in total agreement concerning the paintings on slipperorchid.info - they are clearly in line with Olafs distincton between 'the real superbiens' and curtisii (and you are right too, that some of the photos used could do with a little make-over, as they only contribute to the confusion!)
I, too, find Kew's Plant List a very usefull tool/guideline - although it of course cannot be considered the Holy Writ, carved in stone. At its best it represents the consensus of the botanical community - though in some cases it might be felt to favour some (british) botanical traditions and views over continental contributions.
I, too, find Kew's Plant List a very usefull tool/guideline - although it of course cannot be considered the Holy Writ, carved in stone. At its best it represents the consensus of the botanical community - though in some cases it might be felt to favour some (british) botanical traditions and views over continental contributions.
Thanks for the comments everyone!
Here's a pic of the curtisii next to a superbiens 'real' that I got from Popow. It arrived in very low spike but blasted so I can't confirm identity. Assuming it is the real thing does anyone else have a plant of the 'real' superbiens from Popow and can share a photo?
Here's a pic of the curtisii next to a superbiens 'real' that I got from Popow. It arrived in very low spike but blasted so I can't confirm identity. Assuming it is the real thing does anyone else have a plant of the 'real' superbiens from Popow and can share a photo?
