Two new Phals

[ORG]

Thanks Peter,
that you showed the links. So it is not necessary to start the discussion again.
For me it is clear, that we have no true speciosa in culture. The base for my decision is the description and the sketch of the describer Reichenbach f, which is deposited in Vienna.

So you can decide if these plants are true:

Here is the true one

Sketch of Reichenbach f. based on the type of Phal., speciosa
Best greetings

Olaf

 

[SlipperFan]

So I have a question, Olaf. Is it possible that Reichenback sketched only one flower he saw that he thought was typical, not seeing others that were not typical?

 

[Rick]

That random petal color trait is pretty crazy.

It must show up in other phal species to for it to be used in the harlequin line of breeding.

Some one was telling me that a similar trait was involved with the staminode (or lack there of) of Phrag exstaminodium. Which is why the fragment of staminode can be highly variable from flower to flower.

 

[Rick]

So I have a question, Olaf. Is it possible that Reichenback sketched only one flower he saw that he thought was typical, not seeing others that were not typical?

This reminds me of the debates about Paph wilhelm/gardnerii and superbians var curtsii.

I'm inclined to think that in the 1800's taxonomists where on heavy doses of hallucinogenicsoke:oke:

It's gotta be about the same as being a baseball umpire.

 

[ORG]

Dear Dot,
Reichenbach has seen mor e than one flower, he has seen a whole plant.

I think also that he has seen more then one plant, but I could not find anything about in the literature. But you can notice in the following sketch from Reichenbach that he ha painted another clone.

Dear Rick, you wrote
'I'm inclined to think that in the 1800's taxonomists where on heavy doses of hallucinogenics'
I think more that some of the owner of plants were on the heavy doses of hall...., when they are looking for a name of their plants.
The descriptions and then names based on the analyze of the taxonomists.

Some of the species were lost, like Paph. glanduliferum, Phal. gibbosa, Phal. speciosa and Phal. luteola. Sometimes owner of plants used later then the names of these lost species for their plants, also when these plants came from other regions or differed clearly from the described one.

Best greetings

Olaf

 

[SlipperFan]

Thanks, Olaf. I can't help thinking, though, that at that time, when this species was first discovered, that there may have been stands of plants that were not either seen or noted, and that later some of these plants came into breeding programs, which produced the random coloration so typical of some of these today.

If not, do you have an explanation for how this random color pattern happened?

 

[Pook]

Here's a link to another discussion on this topic.
Botanist is the late Eric Christensen. If he said it's tetraspis, then it is!