Paph. Taiwan vs Lady Isabel

[Drorchid]

As promised a picture of a remake of Paph.Taiwan. This is the first seedlilng to bloom from this cross. (platyphyllum 'Tonka' x rothschildianum 'Chester Hill' FCC/AOS).

Compared to Paph. Lady Isabel (stonei x rothschildianum), the flowers have a yellow to tan background (Lady Isabel has a white background), the pouch is light brown, while the pouch of Lady Isabel is more maroon to mahogany in color, the dorsal is not as flat as Paph. Lady Isabel, and the foliage is larger and wider compared to Paph. Lady Isabel.

Robert

 

[nikv]

Very nice comparison! If I had to choose, I'd still go with the Lady Isabel, though. I love the lighter background.

 

[swamprad]

Thank you, Robert for this very interesting and helpful comparison. It does appear that my older, multi-growth plant, though tagged "Lady Isabel", was made with what was then known as "stonei var. latifolium", and is in fact Paph. Taiwan.

 

[JeanLux]

great pics of 2 multi beauties!!!! Esp. the last profile comparison is excellent!!! If I had to choose..., I would take both !! Jean

 

[nikv]

I have a question. Are all of the platyphyllums in cultivation derived from a selfing of the 'Ruth Kennedy' clone or has this species been rediscovered in nature?

 

[Drorchid]

I have a question. Are all of the platyphyllums in cultivation derived from a selfing of the 'Ruth Kennedy' clone or has this species been rediscovered in nature?

If you want to know more about this species, I wrote an article in 2003 about Paph. platyphyllum in the Orchid Digest vol 67(3). In that article I provided enough evidence to show that it was indeed a separate species, and not a variety of Paph. stonei. Thanks to that article, the RHS and Phillip Crib agreed that it was indeed a valid species.

This species was discovered in 1964 near the summit of Mount Bukit Kana in Borneo by Dr. Yoshishige Tachibana. He collected 20 specimens, of which 15 were given to Fumimasa Sugiyama of Yamoto-Neon Orchids in Japan. A few years later Fumimasa sent a division to Norwood Schafer in Baltimore, Maryland, who then sent it to George Kennedy in California. This is the plant that got awarded as Paph. stonei var latifolium 'Ruth Kennedy'. Indeed most platyphyllums in this country are from selfings of that plant. We (Orchids Limited) did get a different plant from a different source. Since 1964 Paph. platyphyllum has never been found or collected in the wild, so all the plants that exist in cultivation are offspring from those original 20 plants collected by Tachibana.

Robert

 

[nikv]

Thank you, Robert!

 

[Paph_LdyMacBeth]

Thanks for showing the comparison.
How large are those blooms?

 

[e-spice]

If you want to know more about this species, I wrote an article in 2003 about Paph. platyphyllum in the Orchid Digest vol 67(3). In that article I provided enough evidence to show that it was indeed a separate species, and not a variety of Paph. stonei. Thanks to that article, the RHS and Phillip Crib agreed that it was indeed a valid species.

This species was discovered in 1964 near the summit of Mount Bukit Kana in Borneo by Dr. Yoshishige Tachibana. He collected 20 specimens, of which 15 were given to Fumimasa Sugiyama of Yamoto-Neon Orchids in Japan. A few years later Fumimasa sent a division to Norwood Schafer in Baltimore, Maryland, who then sent it to George Kennedy in California. This is the plant that got awarded as Paph. stonei var latifolium 'Ruth Kennedy'. Indeed most platyphyllums in this country are from selfings of that plant. We (Orchids Limited) did get a different plant from a different source. Since 1964 Paph. platyphyllum has never been found or collected in the wild, so all the plants that exist in cultivation are offspring from those original 20 plants collected by Tachibana.

Robert

That is a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing it!

e-spice

 

[Drorchid]

I forgot to add, that this species was finally described by Tomohisa Yukawa in 2001, and he is the one that named it Paph. platyphyllum, but even after his description there was doubt in the orchid community regarding the validity of this species. Some considered it a variety of stonei, and some even thought it was a hybrid between kolopakingii and stonei. It was not until my paper in the Orchid Digest, that is was considered a valid species, although some taxonomists like Guido Braem are still not truly convinced.

Robert

 

[CodPaph]

very very nice 2 bloom

 

[emydura]

Thanks for the photos and interesting comments.

The photos demonstrate why Lady Isabel is so much nicer.

David

 

[eOrchids]

Interesting story!

Love them both!

 

[NYEric]

How many taxonomists does it take to screw in a light bulb? :evil:

 

[Bolero]

That is indeed very helpful, I really didn't know about the issues around these hybrids until the other thread.

Thanks for sharing this useful information.

 

[Wendy]

I love both of them. Both my Taiwan and lady Isabel are currently in sheath...can't wait!

 

[Drorchid]

I will start a new thread with some old pictures of Paph. platyphyllum, in case you don't know what that species looks like.

Robert

 

[Wendy]

Looking forward to that. I have a stonei in sheath but my platyphyllum is a couple years from blooming. It will be interesting to see your photos.

 

[Elena]

Thank you for the pictures and the fascinating story, Robert. Very informative!

That Lady Isabel is terrible, though, what an eyesore. You should send it to me so you don't have to look at it any more :evil:

 

[SlipperFan]

Interesting history, Robert. Thanks. Now I have to go see if my Orchid Digests date back to 2003.