The photo is not clear enough for me to get an accurate look at the staminode.
Bear with me for being blunt: you have to be blind as a mole for not seeing, that the staminode of the plant, you present in your photo, in no way conforms to the botanical description of the staminode of P. stonei ("staminode yellow ..... convex, subcircular, truncate or incised at apex, 14 mm long, 11 mm wide, margins coarsely hairy", Cribb, 2014; "The staminode is oval-oblong, yellowish-white, fringed and densely covered with bristle-like hairs except for the glabrous front", Braem et al. 1998).
Here you see what a true P. stonei looks like (like you also clearly see in Djthomp's photo above, #10):
Paphiopedilum stonei
The staminode of your flowers show very clearly in your photo - if you take a closer look at for example the flower most to the right, where you get a very good view of the staminode in profile, so to speak, you will see the influence of Rothschildianum without doubt (Roth-staminode: "linear, bifid at apex,
geniculate, 14-16 mm long, 4-5 mm wide, densely glandular-pubescent on the margins and at base, pale yellow green", Cribb, 2014; "The staminode is peculiarly structured, resembling the head and beak of a crane, with a long, two-toothed apex held at right angles to the base. It is hairy at the base and along the margins", Braem et al., 1998).
The veining of as well the dorsal sepals as the synsepals show influence from both rothschildianum and stonei, whereas, I would say, the petals are markedly influenced by stonei.
I sent Jerry [Fischer] an email to confirm and I’ll post after I hear back from him.
The only way any confirmation from him would make sense, would be if you have sent him the photo, posted here. And I can't imagine, that he would risk his professional reputation by claiming a plant to be P. stonei, that so clearly
do not adhere to the botanical description of the species!
