Will the true superbiens please stand up!

[SlipperKing]

So you all be the judge. I bought this plant from Popow on one of his import trips to Florida Oct of 2016. Labeled as the real superbiens. Prior to that time ST had a long thread on curtisii vs superbiens, which I included here. Plus a recent photo from FB of another blooming superbiens SE Asia.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=44281&share_fid=45886&share_type=t

https://goo.gl/images/wP5bHY


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[SlipperKing]

Now I have the two species in question beside each other. To me, what has been call superbiens for years is in fact different variations of curtisii.

P. curtisii on the left. P superbiens to the right.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Paphluvr]

One thing that Cash mentions in her description of superbiens and that Birk illustrates very well in his book is this "The margins are ciliate and gently undulate; a quarter turn spiral occurs toward the distal apices." Your plant does not exhibit this in the least. I don't think I've seen a purported curtisii or superbiens that looks like yours. I guess the only way this will be settled would be for a qualified botanist revisiting the original descriptions, or maybe this has already been done? I haven't kept up with the literature lately.

 

[tomkalina]

Doesn't look like any superbiens I've ever seen. Our's look a lot like your comparison photo. (See attached).

 

[chrismende]

My thought is that this may well be true, as Popow says. Superbiens and "curtisii" have been genetically mixed for so long that I think it might be pretty much impossible now to reliably define either.
The Popow plant, if it is truly a species, with clearly defined and documented habitat, etc, is clearly something akin but different from our idea of curtisii (which has never been very well defined from my research). Genetic analysis should be done. Has it, per Popow?

 

[SlipperKing]

Did anyone follow the two links I inserted? The first link is a thread Paphluvr started and in that thread there's another link to an older thread Leo started.
The second link is a photo recently posted of a much better clone of superbiens than mine with several pictures of it.
I encourage you all to do so if you haven't yet.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Don I]

It is kind of a nice flower, regardless. I hope Eric is right in the first link, because I have a plant with blueish leaves labled var. curtisii and a plant in bud with more greenish leaves labled superbiens.
Don

 

[NYEric]

My comment was based on a plant I got from Chiu Hua. to settle the matter why don't you send me the plant on the right?! :evil:

 

[SlipperKing]

One thing that Cash mentions in her description of superbiens and that Birk illustrates very well in his book is this "The margins are ciliate and gently undulate; a quarter turn spiral occurs toward the distal apices." Your plant does not exhibit this in the least. I don't think I've seen a purported curtisii or superbiens that looks like yours. I guess the only way this will be settled would be for a qualified botanist revisiting the original descriptions, or maybe this has already been done? I haven't kept up with the literature lately.

You must be talking about Cash's 1991 edition and describes Paph curtisii AS superbiens. She follows Cribb's 1987 monograph, who gets it all wrong.
Pick up a copy "A Survey of The Slipper Orchids" by V. Hugh Waters and Catherine C. Waters, 1973 edition. Here, let's see if I can take pictures of the two descriptions and post.
First is Paph curtisii


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[SlipperKing]

Now Paph superbiens


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[SlipperKing]

The two descriptions above fit my curtisii and superbiens perfectly. Notice too, the locations of both plants.... miles apart.
These so-called experts after 73-75 missed the boat completely on these two.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Spaph]

The two descriptions above fit my curtisii and superbiens perfectly. Notice too, the locations of both plants.... miles apart.
These so-called experts after 73-75 missed the boat completely on these two.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well said!:clap:
Wish I had the real superbiens!

 

[paworsport]

True one
Nice plant
I have to dig into my pics to find the original sketch of the mann Who describes it, it is obvious

 

[Ozpaph]

Reichenbachia from the 1880s -

 

[SlipperKing]

Here is the Lindenia of 1890, superbiens

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Ozpaph]

Your popow flower looks like the Lindenia

 

[Paphluvr]

You must be talking about Cash's 1991 edition and describes Paph curtisii AS superbiens. She follows Cribb's 1987 monograph, who gets it all wrong.
Pick up a copy "A Survey of The Slipper Orchids" by V. Hugh Waters and Catherine C. Waters, 1973 edition. Here, let's see if I can take pictures of the two descriptions and post.

I have the Waters and Waters book but didn't refer to it because it is all black and white line drawings (except for the two meager pages in the center) and neither curtisii or superbiens is illustrated. You do know that Catherine Cash co-authored the Waters and Waters book? Why the change of viewpoint?

 

[Guldal]

Neither I have been able to make head nor tales of Cribb's distinction between P. superbiens var. superbiens and var. curtisii.

I have in my possession 3 plants from reliable and very experienced vendors: 1 labelled superbiens, 2 labelled curtisii - there is a difference in leaf colour, but as one of the curtisii is closer in the colouring to the one labelled superbiens, nothing to distinguish them from one another (and may I remind you of the fact, that the distinct difference in leaf colouring of P. dayanum doesn't render it two different varieties!).

And Cribb's main distinctive features, the difference in petal shape (slight) and length in proportion to the pouch, doesn't help me with my 3 plant, either...and is that actually really enough to give a varietal status? Far from being a botanist, I still have my doubts.

I recently acquired a plant like the one, you got from Popow, Rick, but from another source. It's so clearly different from the other 3 - and fits the description for superbiens, that you quote from Walters & Walters.

I therefor tend to think, that you might be right in your assertion:

To me, what has been call superbiens for years is in fact different variations of curtisii

But what we need now is someone going back to the original descriptions for superbiens and curtisii, respectively, by Reichenbach f. and maybe later Pfitzer; and examining the herbarium specimens for the described plants, while comparing them to the plants posing the present problems. Maybe helped a bit along the road by genetic analysis, too?

And by the way, Rick, your plant from Popow - and the flower is truly beautifull! Please, keep us posted, when the other buds are fully opened!

Kind regards,
Jens

 

[Guldal]

These so-called experts after 73-75 missed the boat completely on these two

Why the need for derogatory remarks? Cribb is, together with Braem (although he, Cribb that is, probably would have hated that comparison), Gruss, Averyanov et al., one of foremost botanical experts on paphs...and a genuine authority in the field...but of course, he too can be proved wrong, if that in the end proves to be the case!

But untill someone has more thoroughly gotten to the bottom of the matter, let us suspend our final verdict and/or condemnation!