Leslie, I checked the undies of both .... P. godefroyae and var. leucochilum and yup ...... both purple. Therefore this should be a trait you shouldn't rely on.
Paphiopedilum leucochilum ‘Double Trouble’
- Thread starter DrLeslieEe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- double leucochilum trouble
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Another thorn trait on my leucochilum journey 
hehe.
hehe.
Tom-DE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 633
From what I understand, I think godefroyae has purple dots on the underside while the other has solid purple. Is it a reliable trait? good question but you need to see a lot more plants to come to the conclusion/answer. Modern mixed breeds may play a trick--just another possibility but I am no breeder or trained taxonomist.
Others may say the pure white pouch is not a reliable trait either--some identified leucochilum do have minor spots on the pouch. If you identify/judge a leucochilum/(or classify any species) just based on the pure white pouch(which I do prefer), that might be too shallow. You guys are so focused on the pure white pouch...but there must be a lot more unique differences for it to be a separate species. I would start looking for those differences... take a look at the original description if you can and the follow-up population after its discovery. It will take some time to do that... worth the effort? probably not, unless you truly are into taxonomy.
I would not change the tag just because of some discussions on forums but call whatever you want if you can't agree upon it. Just my two cents.
Just being sarcastic, Should we call those with almost solid black/dark purple dorsal a separate species? Leslie, give yours a new species name
Last edited:
Tom, both have a solid purple underside of the leaves .... beside of that ... also my P. niveum has in some leaves a solid purple underside. So I wouldn't see this as a reliable trait.
In original description of Cypripedium godefroyae var. leucochilum (ROLFE, 1894) is mentioned a clear pure white pouch without spots.
Meanwhile some taxonomists... but not all .... and unfortunately KEW Science follows them, have raised this variety to species status.
But I and I think I can speak here for the other members of the T.E.l.L.
, we can't see a true species in this plants. In our eyes they are only a variety of Paph. godefroyae (with a clear and pure white pouch).Also just my two pennies worth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,765
- Reaction score
- 4,038
Great leucos. I love the contrast between dark petals and white pouch.
Tom-DE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 633
Let's keep niveum out of this discussion. There are a few more species that have purple undersides... Let me clarify this, These are not my findings, a trait or not, we need to look at more plants that have been properly identified. What about the differences on the upper side of the leaves, the tooth....
Don't forget the original description is based on one or a few plants. Even if the pure white pouch was mentioned in the original, but the later population might have a few spots... it would be way too extreme to disqualify a plant because it has A spot/even a few spots on the pouch while everything else fits for that species.
I agree with your observation about how Kew handled some of the identification. but just remember some of the early collected godefroyae plants have very different looks (much skinnier/less full, unlike the full flower of the leucochilum).Meanwhile some taxonomists... but not all .... and unfortunately KEW Science follows them, have raised this variety to species status.
But I and I think I can speak here for the other members of the T.E.l.L.
Also just my two cents.
I would agree we should treat all of the leucochilum (with pure white/ few spots on the pouch) as a variety of godefroyae...but like the pope said, "Who I am to judge" LOL!
Carry on! Where is Leslie? I believe he is the one who started this and keeps "provoking" the T.E.I.L....I am too busy around here and I am out!
Last edited:
I’m just watching the show unfolding here chomping on popcorn 
.
I’ll stir the fire with a stick or two
.
.I’ll stir the fire with a stick or two
.
Last edited:
Leslie, if you accept the point of view, that leucochilum is, at the most, a variety of godefroyae, I might be persuaded to live with these flowers/plant as leucochilum... and some darn good flowers they are, indeed! 
I can even follow some of Tom's rather sarcastic musings over the futility of the godefroyae-leucochilum debate. Though, only to a certain degree, as I 100% back the beloved Chairman of the T.E.l.L. in the view, that the futility lies with those, who raised leucochilum to species rank without sufficient morphological criterias to distinguish between the two "species".
Tom poignantly addresses the problem of basing botanical discussion on cultivated plants, especially because of the risk of interbreeding of closely related species in culture, that washes away the features, that distinguish them from each other; not to mention the (hidden) hybridization used by some nurseries to 'spice up' some species with respect to fx size and colour/intensity of their flowers.
The botanical description thus has to rely on plants growing - or with certainty have been growing in their natural habitat. This, by the way, raises more than a few questions for species extinct in nature, and now only known in cultivation.
However, unless someone based on very valid data challenges the original description of a species or variety, this description stands. Some might find it stupid to base the identification of a species on a single feature of a plant/flower - and Tom clearly does, when it comes to the unspotted, outer lip of leucochilum. Whether the other characteristica mentioned by Tom in his citation of distinguishing features between godefroyae and leucochillum (please, be so kind as to share with us the source!) are universally accepted by botanist, I do not know. But as the unspotted, outer lip is the one characteristic feature mentioned by Rolfe in his original description of the leucochilum variety of godefroyae (referred to by Rudolf), it naturally follows, that ANY plant deviating with respect to this, and no matter which other features, it might posses, or what it otherwise might be considered to be, leucochilum it ain't!
I can even follow some of Tom's rather sarcastic musings over the futility of the godefroyae-leucochilum debate. Though, only to a certain degree, as I 100% back the beloved Chairman of the T.E.l.L. in the view, that the futility lies with those, who raised leucochilum to species rank without sufficient morphological criterias to distinguish between the two "species".
Tom poignantly addresses the problem of basing botanical discussion on cultivated plants, especially because of the risk of interbreeding of closely related species in culture, that washes away the features, that distinguish them from each other; not to mention the (hidden) hybridization used by some nurseries to 'spice up' some species with respect to fx size and colour/intensity of their flowers.
The botanical description thus has to rely on plants growing - or with certainty have been growing in their natural habitat. This, by the way, raises more than a few questions for species extinct in nature, and now only known in cultivation.
However, unless someone based on very valid data challenges the original description of a species or variety, this description stands. Some might find it stupid to base the identification of a species on a single feature of a plant/flower - and Tom clearly does, when it comes to the unspotted, outer lip of leucochilum. Whether the other characteristica mentioned by Tom in his citation of distinguishing features between godefroyae and leucochillum (please, be so kind as to share with us the source!) are universally accepted by botanist, I do not know. But as the unspotted, outer lip is the one characteristic feature mentioned by Rolfe in his original description of the leucochilum variety of godefroyae (referred to by Rudolf), it naturally follows, that ANY plant deviating with respect to this, and no matter which other features, it might posses, or what it otherwise might be considered to be, leucochilum it ain't!
Please let us also not forget that "leuco-chilum" means "white-lip" and was clearly named by Rolfe with this unique feature in mind....
By a proud T.E.I.L. member
By a proud T.E.I.L. member
Tom-DE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 633
Jen, my citation is from Lance Birk's book. He had explored the jungles for slipper orchids quite extensively(I will see if I have his bio...). Are his findings accepted universally? I am afraid there is no such thing even if it is from the top taxonomist. Well, at least, many of his findings are from his field works.
What I don't get you guys is that you'll disqualify a plant just because it has a single spot/even a few spots on the lip while everything else fits that species.
@DirGo, of course, we know what Leuco means...and based on what I just read, that article doesn't weigh much...
What I don't get you guys is that you'll disqualify a plant just because it has a single spot/even a few spots on the lip while everything else fits that species.
@DirGo, of course, we know what Leuco means...and based on what I just read, that article doesn't weigh much...
Last edited:
Tom-DE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 633
Let's just call it variable species/variety and be done with it! Obviously, we(not so much me tho) can't agree upon...When I posted mine, I already said I would be okay with whatever my leucochilum would be (called).
Last edited:
Tom-DE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Reaction score
- 633
You are such a chicken!I’m just watching the show unfolding here chomping on popcorn
I’ll stir the fire with a stick or two
Incidentally I WAS born in the year of the Rooster!
FYI, I am never one to step back from controversy. But I do however hear from both sides equally and unbiased with open mind before I speak.
You may not have read the previous discussion under “leucochilum ‘Blackest Knight’ AM/AOS” in the award section … but that’s where TELL started
. I was pretty vocal there. But I will again offer my thoughts on this soon.
I might have expressed myself too bombastic - by 'universally' I just meant by a large chunk, maybe even a majority of (otherwise sensible) botanist! Of course there will never be - and never should be total unanimousity on everything among botanists - that would leave science petrified and dogmatical - and would soon bring them all on the dole after the 'publish or perish' principle!
Concerning the question of the single or few spots on the lip: in these pages we have seen plants presented as leucochilum with so much anthocyanin on the outside of the lip, that it renders the concept of leucochillum void and meaningless, as just one quite recent example demonstrates: Paphiopedilum leucochilum ‘Blackest Knight’ AM/AOS
I'm just a happy amateur, albeit one who hates logical inconsistencies, and I'll happily leave the final verdict on the taxonomic status of godefroyae vis-à-vis leucochilum to the professionals, i.e. those botanists, who can argue their case most strongly.
This said, I can't rid myself of the gut feeling, that where it all went off the rails, was when Fowlie raised Rolfe's leucochilum variety of godefroyae to species status.
By the way, Rudolf, what does Gruß (ORG) say on the matter in his new three volumes monograph on the genus?
Last edited:
Dear, oh dear....bearing the present political climate in mind..."Proud T.E.l.L.s"...maybe one better stand back, stay clear and take counsel immediately!By a proud T.E.I.L. member
Last edited:
Man o man, lots of stuff to read in the morning, but good stuff. The discussion goes on....
This said that I wouldn't have accepted a single big or heavy spot on the lip to name it var. leucochilum.
This is also my perception on these flowers/this plant because the other flower seems to be without a spot ....and that I erased this tiny spot in the photo was more a joke and I think .... Leslie accepted it as a joke.Leslie, if you accept the point of view, that leucochilum is, at the most, a variety of godefroyae, I might be persuaded to live with these flowers/plant as leucochilum... and some darn good flowers they are, indeed!
This said that I wouldn't have accepted a single big or heavy spot on the lip to name it var. leucochilum.
Last edited:
That's good point, Dirk but not enough to raise this plant to species status ... so var. leucochilum fits.
I find this weighs a lot and in my eyes more than all the soft criterias which you cited from L. Birk.
In my eyes and IMHO they aren't stable enough to separate a variety and raise it to species status. I had a look at my P. godefroyae and var. leucochilum and I find some traits on both of them. O.k. they aren't collected in the wild but man propagated.
Olaf is a bit ambivalent in my eyes. On the one hand he follows the pure white pouch proponents, e.g.
- names it Paph. godefroyae fma. leucochilum (Rolfe) Braehm&Chiron, 2003
- mentiones several time the pure white and unspotted pouch/lip...and I cite O. Gruß, Paphiopedilum Südostasiatische Frauenschuhe Band 1 (2020) p.179 ff.
"Beschreibung:
Die Farbform hat die gleiche Form und Färbung wie das Paph. godefroyae. Lediglich die Lippe zeigt keinerlei Flecken und Zeichnung.....
Desciption:
This colour form has the same shape and colouration like Paph. godefroyae. Only the lip shows no spots or markings at all ....
Verwechselungsmöglichkeiten:
Von der Normalform Paph. godefroyae unterscheidet es sich durch den reinweisen Schuh.......
Posibilities of confusing:
It distiguishes from the normal form Paph. godefroyae by its pure white shoe.....
-writes, that only L. Birk raised this plant to species status...
but shows on the other hand also few photos with more or less spotted pouches.
Last edited:
This will be my last "on the definition of leucochilum" reply.
First apologies to all who posted wonderful pictures and had their pictures focus highjacked by my/our taxonomical comments. Secondly I really love that we constructively share different opinions and useful information. I am always happy to learn from all of you.
I think what we all have in culture as "godefroyae/leucochilum complex" has been highly influenced by man made line selecting and by past mislabelling and no longer represents the gene pool existing in the wild. I even belief some offspring would hardly be recognized by the natural pollinators if they were put back into the wild. With this in mind it would be crazy to black/white disqualify a plant on a wrong pixel color.
Older original descriptions were made with the limited knowledge at the time. As a result many are very challenging when used with all information we have access to today. For me that does not mean they should be ignored but retain info within the right context, Also I like to share any description info and latin meaning I know of - sincere apologies if it was already known to you - I always hope others enjoy the info I share and appreciate it.
In my non-professional view leucochilum does not validate species level. As far as I know, color deviations are now more considered forms, not varieties which are more reserved for shape deviations, so my last personal call would be "godefroyae forma leucochilum" for flowers with a white lip, but if even taxonomists cannot agree on species, variety or form, how can we?
Thanks for all comments made so far - I will sit aside and only read from now on
First apologies to all who posted wonderful pictures and had their pictures focus highjacked by my/our taxonomical comments. Secondly I really love that we constructively share different opinions and useful information. I am always happy to learn from all of you.
I think what we all have in culture as "godefroyae/leucochilum complex" has been highly influenced by man made line selecting and by past mislabelling and no longer represents the gene pool existing in the wild. I even belief some offspring would hardly be recognized by the natural pollinators if they were put back into the wild. With this in mind it would be crazy to black/white disqualify a plant on a wrong pixel color.
Older original descriptions were made with the limited knowledge at the time. As a result many are very challenging when used with all information we have access to today. For me that does not mean they should be ignored but retain info within the right context, Also I like to share any description info and latin meaning I know of - sincere apologies if it was already known to you - I always hope others enjoy the info I share and appreciate it.
In my non-professional view leucochilum does not validate species level. As far as I know, color deviations are now more considered forms, not varieties which are more reserved for shape deviations, so my last personal call would be "godefroyae forma leucochilum" for flowers with a white lip, but if even taxonomists cannot agree on species, variety or form, how can we?
Thanks for all comments made so far - I will sit aside and only read from now on
