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

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GuRu

experienced greenhorn
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
6,294
Reaction score
2,633
Location
Germany
My Paph. superbiens var curtisii is flowering for the very first time. I think there shouldn't exists any doubts about its identity.

07438_21.07.13_paph superbiens var. curtisii.jpg


07446_21.07.13_paph superbiens var. curtisii.jpg


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.......????

07451_21.07.13_paph superbiens.jpg


07452_21.07.13_paph superbiens.jpg
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
IMG_20210708_095256_1.jpg
IMG_20210820_112407_1.jpg

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.

IMG_20210820_122214_1.jpg

What do you think? Both curtisii?
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top