Paph. superbiens var. curtisii and Paph. superbiens ???

[GuRu]

My Paph. superbiens var curtisii is flowering for the very first time. I think there shouldn't exists any doubts about its identity.

Side by side I grow a Paph superbiens (this name was on the tag when I bought the plant) and in addition to the thread started by Istvan I'm not really sure what it is. The staminode for example looks similar tho that of P. barbatum or P. callosum.......????

 

[GuRu]

Last but not least two side by side photos of the flowers:

 

[dodidoki]

Both are very nice.First is straight curtisii, second one is a callosum hybrid,I think, definitely not superbiens.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

I agree with both your assessments.

 

[GuRu]

So we are three....I presumed a P. callosum/barbatum affinity by its staminode.

 

[Ozpaph]

i think 'one' is probably a hybrid

 

[NYEric]

Your photos do not show for me.

 

[GuRu]

Eric, I don't know why ? Obviously everything is o.k. with them. If it's o.k. for you I will send you a PM with their URL's.

 

[Guldal]

I can only agree with the esteemed gentlemen above!

Though, for once to avoid the notorious, historical confusion, I enter the camp of 'lumpers': with your species flower, I will stick to Paph. curtisii.....and reserve the P. superbiens epithet only for the 'true' superbiens, thought long lost!

 

[UweM]

have a look here:

Paph curtisii and superbiens - the great debate

You're right, that is different from either "superbiens or curtisii". I am not a taxologist so I have no idea what it means!

www.slippertalk.com

--> see from post 45

----

the plant shown here as superbiens is likely to be a callosum hybrid. Obviously name tags got mixed up when the seedlings were being flasked out.

The "Real" superbiens can also be found in the nursery alongside the callosum hybrids

 

[Martin]

I have two plants in flower which i think they are curtisii. First one i got as superbiens. It hast a big nice flower with intense dark color. The leaf color is different compared to the one shown above.



Seconds plant i got from Popow as sangii ayubianum so the outcome is little Bit disappointing. The flower looks quite similar to my other plant, but ist not as big in size and looks more graceful. The leaf color is like the other plant.



What do you think? Both curtisii?

 

[Guldal]

I vote for curtisii in both cases!

Re the faux sangii: do write to Popow and send the photo...in my experience they have always been fair to deal with, when a plant have turned out to be somewhat other than what I bought! Which, by the way, have only been the case very, very rarely.

Last time round was a sukhakulii fma aureum, that turned out to be the typical form (albeit a quite nice one). Mr. Popow wrote me back, that to his chagrin every plant in the larger batch of alleged 'aureums', that my plant came from, had turned out this way...and promptly and without a quibble refunded me the money paid for the plant. See, that's what I call service and a high professional standard!

 

[Guldal]

I think Olaf Gruß (ORG) in the following post clearly illustrates the difference between 'true' superbiens and what I think, after this species reintroduction into culture, would most wisely be designated P. curtisii (as no one seem to have come up with botanical descriptions, that make head not tail of the difference between P. superbiens and P. superbiens var. curtisii):

Your plant is really a true Paphiopedilum curtisii. Some years ago the true Paph. superbiens was found again and this Shows the clear differences to curtisii. Her eat first two different clones of curtisii


View attachment 16835
Paphiopedilum curtisii


and now the true superbiens View attachment 16836 Paphiopedilum superbiens

Here an old print of the typical Paph. superbiens

View attachment 16837

Best greetings

Olaf

 

[GuRu]

I vote for curtisii in both cases!.........

I think Olaf Gruß (ORG) in the following post clearly illustrates the difference between 'true' superbiens and what I think, after this species reintroduction into culture, would most wisely be designated P. curtisii (as no one seem to have come up with botanical descriptions, that make head not tail of the difference between P. superbiens and P. superbiens var. curtisii):

Jens, I would like to second your statement. There is a lot of confusion, at least in my eyes, around this two species or varities. In many cases there have been shown images of both which look almost thes same. Also the two links Paph. superbiens and Paph. curtisii which have been inserted here some times ago show two flowers......where it's hard to find significant diferences and the Paph. superbiens doesn't look realy like the drawing shown by Olaf. BTW the book of H. Koopowitz 'Tropical Slipper Orchids' shows also confusing pictures of both.
So there will be a rest of doubt, at least in my eyes.