Phrag. schlimm - fischeri

[terryros]

This is a picture of a flower from my plant, which comes from a long line of self and sibling crosses using the plant originally identified and then scientifically registered as Phragmipedium fischeri by Orchids Limited (good friends of mine).



Scientific studies have been an important part of my career, and I think that Frank Cervera’s (FrankC on this forum) paper in the August 2024 AOS Orchids journal makes a strong case that we have incorrectly divided Phrag. schlimii into other species. I cannot make any expert comments about the characteristics of my flower in this regard.

Since the scientific naming of plants and animals began, there have been debates (and worse) about what constitutes a new genus, species, subspecies, infraspecies/varietas (var.), and forma (f.). The criteria are multiple, complicated, and sometimes open to interpretation. Human emotions play a significant role in pushing for a new plant to be classified as a new genus, species, etc. There are multiple such controversies in many popular orchid genera.

Appearance alone cannot decide whether something should be a new genus, species, etc. Various types of DNA analysis are evolving to improve plant species identification, but they aren’t easy and there is little published information using these tools in most of our orchid controversies.

I don’t think the orchid-collecting world has enough incentive (or money) to push for these kinds of analyses. There is also some fear about what might be found; who wants to change plant labels from Laeliocattleya to Cattleya when purpurata moves from Laelia to Cattleya! Why did Brassavola digbyana have to become Rhyncholaelia digbyana?

Even worse, when a species is removed and merged into another, its hybrids become just synonyms. Who wants to be a synonym? Ask those who worked hard to acquire a Phrag. dalessandroi (or have hybrids made with it). We now cling to its being Phrag. besseae var. dalessandroi (where at least the hybrid names still hold). How will we feel when genetics show that dalessandroi is just a form of besseae? Goodbye to the special name I used to register my hybrid!

 

[mrhappyrotter]

Looking back, it's almost comical that the species currently called Rhyncholaelia were ever lumped into a genus with Brassavolas. This is coming from a non-scientific standpoint, of course. But these two genera seem pretty distinct to me in numerous ways, so lumping them together seems weird.

The line between genera, however, is often more defined, pronounced, and obvious than the line between species.

For the entirety of the time I've known about dalessandroi, it seems like the taxonomy has been shaky. From a purely visual perspective limited only to cultivated specimens, I've never been entirely convinced it is a completely different species from besseae.

Schlimii and all its variants/relatives, I'm a little less convinced. I'm totally on board with the fact that we can't really base taxonomic decisions based solely on cultivated specimens, and instead need to look at natural populations. As a hobbyist grower outside of the scientific community, I'm perfectly aware that my viewpoint and opinion on the matter are irrrelevant. Having said that, I would still like to see some effort put into DNA analysis. I don't care that it's expensive and time consuming and that the outcome is all but certain.

That topic aside, it's a lovely fischeri! I appreciate how compact growing this species/variety is! My only complaint is that it's not usually fragrant. Maybe one day they'll find a wild population that looks more or less like "fischeri", but which has the fragrance of a typical form of schlimii.

 

[terryros]

Looking back, it's almost comical that the species currently called Rhyncholaelia were ever lumped into a genus with Brassavolas. This is coming from a non-scientific standpoint, of course. But these two genera seem pretty distinct to me in numerous ways, so lumping them together seems weird.

The line between genera, however, is often more defined, pronounced, and obvious than the line between species.

For the entirety of the time I've known about dalessandroi, it seems like the taxonomy has been shaky. From a purely visual perspective limited only to cultivated specimens, I've never been entirely convinced it is a completely different species from besseae.

Schlimii and all its variants/relatives, I'm a little less convinced. I'm totally on board with the fact that we can't really base taxonomic decisions based solely on cultivated specimens, and instead need to look at natural populations. As a hobbyist grower outside of the scientific community, I'm perfectly aware that my viewpoint and opinion on the matter are irrrelevant. Having said that, I would still like to see some effort put into DNA analysis. I don't care that it's expensive and time consuming and that the outcome is all but certain.

That topic aside, it's a lovely fischeri! I appreciate how compact growing this species/variety is! My only complaint is that it's not usually fragrant. Maybe one day they'll find a wild population that looks more or less like "fischeri", but which has the fragrance of a typical form of schlimii.

I don’t notice fragrance with my flower.