Paphiopedilum coccineum Blooms

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Am I incorrect that Kew considers coccineum a valid species? Check out link:
http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:1017665-1

Phred, we came across this issue in another thread few weeks ago. You get different, sometimes contrary statements from different but KEW based sources.
Your link to a KEW based source says P. coccineum is a true species. This link to another KEW based source says Paph coccineum is a synonym to P. barbigerum.
Even P. barbigerum var. coccineum or P. barbigerum var. lockianum are synonyms according to this source. It's a bit confusing and IMHO in the end everyone has to decide for himself which name he/she writes on the tag.
 
Even P. barbigerum var. coccineum or P. barbigerum var. lockianum are synonyms according to this source. It's a bit confusing and IMHO in the end everyone has to decide for himself which name he/she writes on the tag.

Rudolf, I, actually, in this case do not find, that it's just a matter of opinion (chacun son gout), more of the strength of the argument: Averyanov, Cribb, et al. in their 'Slipper orchids of Vietnam' have the strongest argumentation for considering these plants a variety of barbigerum, and hence their designation of them as 'P. barbigerum var. lockianum' ought to be followed.
This is also a case demonstrating, why in such matters, one can't solely take recourse to a mere check list, but has to consult the litterature to see the discussion expounded in the full!
Ultimately, no one can of course control, what individual growers choose to write on their name tags, but that's quite another matter and not necessarily linked to the most valid botanical designation of the plants!
 
Last edited:
Rudolf, I, actually, in this case do not find, that it's just a matter of opinion (chacun son gout), more of the strength of the argument: Averyanov, Cribb, et al. in their 'Slipper orchids of Vietnam' have the strongest argumentation for considering these plants a variety of barbigerum, and hence their designation of them as 'P. barbigerum var. lockianum' ought to be followed.
This is also a case demonstrating, why in such matters, one can't solely take recourse to a mere check list, but has to consult the litterature to see the discussion expounded in the full!
Ultimately, no one can of course control, what individual growers choose to write on their name tags, but that's quite another matter and not necessarily linked to the most valid botanical designation of the plants!

Jens, my statement was meant with regard to the two contrary statements of KEW based sites. Of course there are always arguments to discuss before making a decision. I for myself who just can percept only for visible traits wouldn't consider it to be a true species but a variety of P. barbigerum. I would like the best P. barbigerum var. coccineum even when it's contrary to your sight. Funny how some people e.g. Orchids & more can't make a decision. They offer P. barbigerum var. coccineum and P. barbigerum var. lockianum side by side.
 
Last edited:
According to AOS SITF see the following from their blog:

Paphiopedilum barbigerum var. coccineum determined to be Paphiopedilum coccineum
Posted on January 01, 2015

Paphiopedilum barbigerum var. coccineum , award 20142044, has been determined to be Paphiopedilum coccineum by SITF

(Jan 2015).

I’m going with Paphiopedilum coccineum. I believe AOS has already awarded coccineum a CHM (certificate of horticultural merit)
 
Last edited:
According to AOS SITF see the following from their blog:

Paphiopedilum barbigerum var. coccineum determined to be Paphiopedilum coccineum
Posted on January 01, 2015

Paphiopedilum barbigerum var. coccineum , award 20142044, has been determined to be Paphiopedilum coccineum by SITF

(Jan 2015).

I’m going with Paphiopedilum coccineum. I believe AOS has already awarded coccineum a CHM (certificate of horticultural merit)

O.K. no problem Phred, maybe you're right. Just btw, after it's discovery it was descibed as P. coccineum in 2000. Few years later moved to P. barbigerum var. coccineum and P. barbigerum var. lockianum and from the beginnings there has been a struggle between taxonomists who see it as a true species v.s. others who see it as variety of P. barbigerum. And obviously the struggle is going on.
 
O.K. no problem Phred, maybe you're right. Just btw, after it's discovery it was descibed as P. coccineum in 2000. Few years later moved to P. barbigerum var. coccineum and P. barbigerum var. lockianum and from the beginnings there has been a struggle between taxonomists who see it as a true species v.s. others who see it as variety of P. barbigerum. And obviously the struggle is going on.

I'm sure... lol.
 
Coccineum is an accepted valid species as of today (based on the latest Kew information). The AOS has since recognized it with a CHM in both 2017 and 2018.

Lockianum is not accepted as barbigerum or coccineum but rather as vejvarutianum (as of today).

Hope that clears everything lol.
 
Very nice type of coccineum, well grown healthy plant...Attached is photos of one coccineum I used to have, a very nicely colored clone, but unfortunately it died of spider mite attack along with mealy bugs...R.I.P
 

Attachments

  • S5031851.jpg
    S5031851.jpg
    167.5 KB · Views: 10
  • S5031852.jpg
    S5031852.jpg
    142.1 KB · Views: 11
  • S5031854.jpg
    S5031854.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 12
  • S5031855.jpg
    S5031855.jpg
    158.8 KB · Views: 12
  • S5031861.jpg
    S5031861.jpg
    158.4 KB · Views: 12
  • S5031862.jpg
    S5031862.jpg
    160.7 KB · Views: 12
  • S5031863.jpg
    S5031863.jpg
    144.9 KB · Views: 10
  • S5031869.jpg
    S5031869.jpg
    157.1 KB · Views: 12
Coccineum is an accepted valid species as of today (based on the latest Kew information). The AOS has since recognized it with a CHM in both 2017 and 2018.
Lockianum is not accepted as barbigerum or coccineum but rather as vejvarutianum (as of today).

Hope that clears everything lol.

Leslie, it isn't that easy, nothing is clear. You must read the thread from the beginning and furthermore follow the links. I'm sure after you have done this you will see the problem. Lol
 
Last edited:
Very nice type of coccineum, well grown healthy plant...Attached is photos of one coccineum I used to have, a very nicely colored clone, but unfortunately it died of spider mite attack along with mealy bugs...R.I.P

Sorry to hear this sad story because it was a very good one. Damn stupid that this happened.
 
Leslie, it isn't that easy, nothing is clear. You must read the thread from the beginning and furthermore follow the links. I'm sure after you have done this you will see the problem. Lol
Guru, I have read the thread several times before I replied.

No matter what is printed out there, this and that, the fact remains that the coccineum is a valid species. You can have all different opinions and same sources say otherwise, but as of today both Kew and AOS has determined coccineum as a true species. That is my whole point. And what judges at shows will follow when we screen this species,
 

Latest posts

Back
Top