Big Leaf Orchid forum
http://www.bigleaforchids.com/phpBB/

Phalaenopsis speciosa - the true species??
http://www.bigleaforchids.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9422
Page 1 of 1

Author:  olaf [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Phalaenopsis speciosa - the true species??

Never I heve seen the true Phalaenopsis speciosa which was described in Gardener's Chron n.s. 15 - 562-1881 by Reichenbach.

Image

One year later he wrote a little bit more about in the same journal in Gardener's Chron n.s. 18 - 745-1882

Image

Image

Image

In the herbarium of Reichenbach f. in Vienna are some sketches of this species

Image

Image

The backside of the species is really remarkable
Image

Image

Some coloured pictures of the species were published also

Image
Phalaenopsis speciosa var. imperiatrix in Reichenbachia 1st ser. vol. 2 pl. 51

Image
Lindenia pl. CCLXXXVIII

Image
Orchid Album

More then 100 years no similar plant was in culture.

Later more

Best greetings

Olaf

Author:  JimL [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

Good work Olaf. Hopefully this will go a long way toward finally putting this controversy to rest.

It's nice to dream that this species/variety still exists but that's probably all it is...a dream.

Author:  LEGAC [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

Thanks Olaf for this post.
There are so many confusions between the true speciosa (as described above) and tetraspis C#1.

What do you think of these flowers :

From Alain Brochart Website (here).

Image

Image

More here : Chantawisurt Orchids, Speciosa Gallery

And the back side of this one (Totof's plant on Orchidoux french Forum, here)

Image

Author:  suss16 [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

This is a great thread - thank you all for the discussion.

Author:  olaf [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

Dear Legac,
the first 2 pictures look really like a speciosa.

On the webpage in Thailand are more tetraspis, named as speciosa.

It would be really interesting where the plants came from

Best greetings

Olaf

Author:  peterlin [ Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

Olaf - thank you for the additional information.

I am just going to think out loud here.

You said
Quote:
More then 100 years no similar plant was in culture.


Then why RHS has Phal speciosa listed with 17 hybrid ? Once Phal tetraspis was considered a variety of Phal speciosa. Maybe around 1996 RHS accepted Phal tetraspis as a distinct species from phal speciosa, and allowed registration made with Phal tetraspis as a parent. What did RHS use as the basis of Phal speciosa?

Most recently 2009 Phal Su's Bellicosa (speciosa x bellina).

This is identified by Dr. Garay, a taxonomist, as Phal speciosa

Image

You disagree with Dr. Garay. I cannot defend Dr. Garay because I don't know him personally - and I have no interest in getting in the middle of disagreement among taxonmoists.

Is it possible that you could have a conversation with Dr. Garay to see if you would come to an agreement?

Alternatively, would you approach RHS and see what steps are needed to determine what is accepted as Phal speciosa or what is not ?

Author:  olaf [ Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis spesiosa - the rue species??

Dear Peter,
the base for the decision to accept speciosa and tetraspis as parents in hybridization was the book of Hermann Sweet. in 1995 or so it was not necessary to send a picture of the primary hybrid. When I remember correctly in the first years after the rediscovering most of the plants were labeled as Phal. speciosa var. tetraspis. So perhaps some of these hybrids were registred.
In a nursery in Asia I saw also plants which were used in hybridzation as speciosa which were in truth pulchra.
Nowerdays it is nearly impossible to correct it.
We have a similar problem with the hybrids of Phal. parishii and Phal. lobbii. All crosses with Phal. lobbii were registred a long time as crosses of parishii. I could correct some of them in cooperation with the Orchid Registrar, especially the crosses made by Henry Walbrunn. Especially I have known when Henry get his first Phal. parishii in Germany when we met us in the south of Germany in Unterwoessen.

About Leslie Garay. I had a long time a good contact to him. Especially about Kingidium and Phragmipedium we had a long discussion. But I tried to contact him in one year ago and could not get furthermore a contact. Perhaps he is now to old or had no possibility to use the computer or he has changed his adress? I tried to get a new adress but I could not get it.

For this time best greetings

Olaf

Author:  stock [ Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis speciosa - the true species??

Dr. Garay's "revival" of the name P. speciosa was extemely premature and reckless based upon a few flowers from cultivated plants. The fact that P. speciosa was entirely exterminated in it's wild habitat before it was established in culture pretty well settles that question. The question that does remain is whether P. speciosa and P. tetraspis were actually seperate and distinct species. This could only be determined with DNA from herbarium specimens of P. speciosa compared to living material of P. tetraspis. If the two were proven to be the same species then the earlier name would prevail. From seeing the original habitat of P. speciosa and P. tetraspis I think it highly unlikely that two seperate but closely related species could exist on small islands unless they had different blooming times and possibly different pollinators. It is possible that P. tetraspis is only a color form of P. speciosa. At present only plants of the P. tetraspis form are in culture despite the odd color in C#1 and others. Odd color forms seems to be inherent in the populations on the Nicobar and Andaman Islands due to a faulty control gene. Whether this gene abnormality was also in the darker colored forms named as P. speciosa is not apparent and probably can never be known. I think at present it is prudent to call all of this group P. tetraspis until better data is available to add more light to the problem. I would not have a problem in calling the living form P. speciosa var. tetraspis if the data is provided to support it.

In reference to the nice photos of old drawings of O. speciosa above, note that the herbarium specimens and all known drawings of actual P. speciosa have a much darker lip and other differences not seen in any living material.

Also, I wouldn't put too much faith in what the RHS chooses to allow or not allow as names for registration. I do not regard the RHS registration as a scientific source. They can't even distinguish the fact that almost all current hybridization with "P. amabilis" is actually being done with P. aphrodite. That alone should rule them out as a souce of "scientific legitimacy".

Dean

Author:  ronan [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Phalaenopsis speciosa - the true species??

stock wrote:
unless they had different blooming times

Dean


my tetraspis, striped one and red one have no blooming season (in cultivation)...they bloom year round (but both, like all my phal, are suspected to be hybrids :D ).
are there really good books on Phalaenopsis (orchids) genetics? christmas is comming fast ;)

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/