Thanks for your comments, Rick.
The identity of your plant still bothers me. I myself, would rather know the history of its existence and I would want to ask the vendor for a complete history of his source. By your comment, I trust that he is a reliable vendor, however, with such a rampant plethora of mis-information these days, in all good conscience, I would need solid evidence to justify the proper identity of any 'species.'
I'm quite familiar with this species and I fully realize the possibilities for its selective breeding, however, I do not believe in the likelihood of it having the inherent characteristic of inflexed petals being bred out of it in only 3, to possibly 5 generations of breeding. Petals of P. charlesworthii do not open reflexed, and then become inflexed.
The size of the dorsal sepal is understandable, however the fact that it appears in your photo that there is no visible constriction at the base might be explained by the angle of view. The size of the ventral sepal is suspiciously large, and it normally takes numerous generations of careful selection to achieve this aspect. Still, is is a possibility with your plant.
My comments about the webbing in the petals is perhaps mis-construed. I am simply surprised to see such intensity. I like it; but it's very pronounced. The deep colors of your flower are quite striking.
I could not hazard a guess as to what, exactly, constitutes the heritage of your plant.....we ALWAYS guess wrong in this exercise. And you are correct in stating that this species is very dominant in just about every aspect of its characteristics. As you know, there always exists the possibility of 'stray genes' inhabiting plants that are selected for appearance. This probability is compounded over time and by plant exchanges.
We face some serious challenges these days, not only because of the restrictions caused by CITES, but by the rampant mis-information propagated on the Internet. It pays to be cautious........I think.
Lance Birk