# Paph glanduliferum revisited



## Howzat (Jun 12, 2011)

Hello Dr. Braem. Back in 1997, at an AOC conference in Brisbane, I had a leaf of my "old glanduliferum var. wilhelminae", (one with reddish leaf base) and showed it to Phil Cribb and he immediately confirmed:"It is wilhelminae". But the following year he published his 2nd edition book, which combined the glanduliferum var. praestan and wilhelminae together and called them as glanduliferum. In the meantime he called glanduliferum var. gardinerii as wilhelminae. Can you comment on Cribb's reclassification of the glanduliferum species? Thanking you in advance, Howard.


----------



## Rick (Jun 12, 2011)

Howard

Seems like you are getting confused on what is in the second edition book.

Cribb put P. praestens as a synonym for glanduliferum, but separated P. wilhelminea from P. glanduliferum in agreement with the Brass 1942 work.

In the process he said the original 1889 name gardnerii was generally bogus and at best synonymous with the naming for either glanduliferum or praestens (which seemed to happen almost simultaneously but independently in the early 1890's) since the plant was not even found on mainland PNG and the only material saved (photo of drawing) was of insufficient quality to ascribe to any new species.

But Cribb did not make wilhelminea synonymous with glanduliferum in his second edition.


----------



## Rick (Jun 12, 2011)

However there is a direct quote in the second edition that Cribb originally sunk wilhelminia as a variety of glanduliferum (in the first edition).


I also pulled out my 2000 Paph checklist by Koopowitz. There is no date listed, but at least in 2000, Braem considered wilhelminea to be a variety of praestens (not glanduliferum).

Koopowitz in 2000 was in agreement with Braem that the original glanduliferum concept is lost to science, and all "big" versions of the concept should be called praestens rather than glanduliferum. But in agreement with Cribb he has wilhelmineae at species status (rather than with agreement with Braem as varietal status).

So this will be interesting to see how things differ in 2011.


----------



## Howzat (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks Rick.
I know that I am really confused , not having Cribb's 2nd ed.
You now say that there is only praestan and that wilhelminae is a synonym. And praestan is the only one, whether it is the the plain leaf or the red based leaf. And there is no such thing as glanduliferum (as it was only known from a dead speciment), I can accept that.
And this wilhelminae is the one I thought to be gardinerii.
I just did not know why Cribb called the red base leaf a "wilhelminae", back in 1997, a year before he had his 2nd edition printed out.


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2011)

Howzat said:


> Thanks Rick.
> I know that I am really confused , not having Cribb's 2nd ed.
> You now say that there is only praestan and that wilhelminae is a synonym. And praestan is the only one, whether it is the the plain leaf or the red based leaf. And there is no such thing as glanduliferum (as it was only known from a dead speciment), I can accept that.
> And this wilhelminae is the one I thought to be gardinerii.
> I just did not know why Cribb called the red base leaf a "wilhelminae", back in 1997, a year before he had his 2nd edition printed out.



Cribb (as of 2nd eddition): has glanduliferum ( no separate praestens) with wilhelmineae a separate species from glanduliferum. Leaf base color not a criteria for anything. Glanduliferum (big plant) paler yellower flowers comes from NW edge of PNG, and surrounding islands to North. Wilhelm is small plant darker flowers, from highlands of PNG not found on surrounding islands.

Braem (as of 2000): has praestens representing the concept of glanduliferum (or glanduliferum extinct) with the same (big plant) paler yellower flowers comes from NW edge of PNG, and surrounding islands to North. Wilhelmineae is the same small plant darker flowers, from highlands of PNG not found on surrounding islands, but just listed as a variety of praestens (not a separate species).

The info I have for Braem's version is a synopsis of Koopowitz's 2000 checklist, so I may not have Braem's key points listed accurately.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 13, 2011)

Braem with Baker and Baker published "The Genus Paphiopedilum" in 98', vol 1 page 139. He mentions P glanduliferum as a lost species and until rediscovered nothing else can be said with this species. As for praestans and wilhelminiae, Braem write up wilhelminiae as a variety of praestans and on page 144 he talks of "Paph wilhelminiae is considered the mountain race of Paph praestans"


----------



## Howzat (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks to Rick and Slipper King.
Cribb will be in Singapore for the WOC, I may have a little chat with him.


----------



## UweM (Jun 14, 2011)

http://www.orchidspng.com/contrib_garay2.html


----------



## Braem (Jun 14, 2011)

Howzat said:


> Hello Dr. Braem. Back in 1997, at an AOC conference in Brisbane, I had a leaf of my "old glanduliferum var. wilhelminae", (one with reddish leaf base) and showed it to Phil Cribb and he immediately confirmed:"It is wilhelminae". But the following year he published his 2nd edition book, which combined the glanduliferum var. praestan and wilhelminae together and called them as glanduliferum. In the meantime he called glanduliferum var. gardinerii as wilhelminae. Can you comment on Cribb's reclassification of the glanduliferum species? Thanking you in advance, Howard.


_Paph. glanduliferum_ is an entity only known from the publication by Blume. That publication shows a detailed drawing of the staminode ... and there is NO known plant that has a staminode that corresponds with the staminode drawn by Blume. Thus, no-one really knows what Paph. glanduliferum is or was or whatever.
I made that clear in Braem, Baker & Baker, vol. 1 (pages 139-140) and again in Braem & Chiron (2003) (pages 364-365) ... where I wrote:

"This species is known only from the type material and the description and illustration in Blume's Rumphia and there is widespread disagreement about its correct classification. Unfortunately, although the description rendered by Blume (loc. cit.) is relatively extensive and quite detailed (see beloe) it causes confusion because there are no plants that quite answer to that description."

If you wish to know why Cribb argues differently, you will have to ask Cribb. For me, the only scientifically valid answer to the question "what is _P. glanduliferum?"_ is "I don't know."


----------



## Howzat (Jun 14, 2011)

Thanks Dr. Braem and also thanks to UweM for sending a piece of notes by Dr. L. Garay. The only thing in Dr Garay's references are (the year that he took notes) from Braem 1988 and Cribb 1987 (over 20 years ago), which could have been superseded by a more recent publication by both.
It does sound like that the Blume's description of the dead specimen of Paph glanduliferum, was quite remarkably different from any known species alliance. Unfortunately, there has not been any rediscovery so far. However it is not in the best interest of Paphiopedilum to take out any references about glanduliferum. So it sounds like that there is still no clear understanding on the subject. 
Phil Cribb has disappointed me for shifting position only one year apart about wilhelminae, and that is enough to say about him.


----------

