# Paph curtisii and superbiens - the great debate



## Leo Schordje (Jul 26, 2009)

I have in bloom a division of a clone of Paph curtisii from California, _Paph. curtisii _'Philip'. 






I also have in bloom a seedling of _Paph superbiens _from Matt Gore. 






Here are the two side by side





So the debate goes on. They are blooming at the same season, they have VERY similar color patterns and shapes. The only obvious difference is in how the dorsal's lower edge rolls back a touch on the plant labelled _superbiens_, giving a slightly more open look between the dorsal & the petals than in the _curtisii_ clone. I would be inclined to say these are both the plants of the same species. Which ever name you choose. But I don't know my taxonomy that well. AND there has been a lot of confusion and mixing over the last 150 years that these have been in cultivation. Both plants I believe are seed raise, so the provenance is murky at best. 

Back in the 1980's I had bought imported Paph curtisii from Ray Rands. Those plants bloomed quite different from either plant pictured here. And quite different from most images I have seen of curtisii. They had much shorter petals, that stood out more, rather than down. And the color pattern was over all much less brown. I think those were 'true' curtisii. But sadly they did not persist. I was a novice at gowing then and lost them about the time that CITES slammed the door shut on all imports of jungle material. I wish I had known then that those would be impossible to replace, I might have taken better care of them. The lesson is to cherish and preserve any orchid that you think may be of wild origin. 

My final thought is, with the note about the curtisii I no longer posess, the both plants above are likely what used to be called superbiens. Now I know Cribb has reduced these to synonmy and called them both curtisii. But I think he did not see the material that Rands had imported in the late 1970;s & early 1980's. If I show either plant, I will let the local judging center call it which ever of the two names they want. It is a confused mess, and it is beyond me to try to straighten it out. 

Enjoy the pictures and if anyone has one of those old Rands imports - post a picture please.


----------



## Rick (Jul 26, 2009)

I don't know if curtsii has ever officially obtained species status from superbians. I've generally seen it listed as superbians var. curtsii.

The differences between these two flowers would even push the limits of varietal status in MHO. But it often goes back to knowing the source geography too.

I'm wondering, based on your short description, if the plants you got from Rands were actually ciliolare rather than curtsii, which in some older taxonomy systems is still just a variety of superbians too (and the spelling is close enough to goof things up). But at least ciliolare have more physical character differences (along with distinct range) from superbians.


----------



## paphioboy (Jul 26, 2009)

Very nice both of them..  Leo, you might want to check out Neeri Orchid's website. They have a pic of superbiens vs curtisii and there apparently are differences in both leaf mottling and stem length too.. They also have a lot of interesting species (e.g. mohrianum, which I've never heard of before.. )


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 26, 2009)

I picked up my first ciliolare before I had bought the curtisii from Rands. There was no mistake, the plants from Rands labelled curtisii were definitely not ciliolare. The differences were unmistakable. I am familiar with ciliolare. The curtisii from Rands were most like the curtisii pictured above, but clearly different. They may have been the "true" curtisii that Jack Fowlei had refered to in his 1970's series in Orchid Digest. They definitely were not the same as what is being traded around these days as curtisii.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 26, 2009)

paphioboy said:


> Very nice both of them..  Leo, you might want to check out Neeri Orchid's website. They have a pic of superbiens vs curtisii and there apparently are differences in both leaf mottling and stem length too.. They also have a lot of interesting species (e.g. mohrianum, which I've never heard of before.. )



Thanks, I'll take a look


----------



## Roy (Jul 27, 2009)

From the growers here, they all believe that the 2 plants should be separated because of the differences in Leaf mottling and color, pouch on the flower, the staminode, flower structure, natural habitat etc. Its all a bit confusing even to me but having seen the 2 side by side I can understand why.
The biggest problem you may find is the crossing of the 2 = P. Cymatodes.
Its quite possible that this plant has been spread around and used in breeding as P.curtisii or superbiens as it is so close to either, depending on growers culture, that its extremely hard to tell from C or S.
The combined name as I know the plants is P.superbiens and superbiens V Curtisii.


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 27, 2009)

this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
this may be very wrong....


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jul 27, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
> this may be very wrong....



I have a similar memory from once upon a time, though I thought it was the upper edge of the pouch not the entire pouch...

It is also worth noting that plants like these that may be several generations of selection away from the wild can be very different in appearance from the wild types.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 27, 2009)

I wonder if Sam would be able to shed some light on this topic?

Nice photos, Leo.


----------



## Rick (Jul 27, 2009)

Most of what I heard bantered around was that curtsii was a dark form of superbians, which is basically born out in these photos given the dark base of the petals and dorsal sepal.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 28, 2009)

likespaphs said:


> this is coming out of the murky recesses of my mind but i thought i heard/read/dreamed up that curtsii has petals that don't extend below the pouch whereas superbiens has petals that extend below it.
> this may be very wrong....


I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 28, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
> Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
> One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.



The clone of superbienns var dayanum "Clarence Schubert" used to be widely availablle around the mid-west. Chuck Acker's father had a good number of the plants from Dr Schubert's collection, we are talking about the 1960 or 1970's. The senior Mr Acker had enough divisions of it that he used to sell the blooms as a cut flower to Madison area florists. Dick Clemments thought that this clone was really Cymatodes "Beechiense" but nothing definite was really determined. If you still have the plant, nurture it. I have not seen any pieces of it in 20 years. It is now pretty rare. 

I have heard the same as far as differences between the two. BUT as Guido Braem and Eric Christiansen have oft reminded me. Unless you go back to the original descriptions, you can't be certain. I need to hit the books. Maybe someday when I have time.


----------



## tenman (Jul 30, 2009)

Harold Koopowitz, in the 1995 OD Paph Checklist, notes that they have different chromosome numbers: curtisii 2n=36 (Karasawa, 1979); superbiens 2n=38 (Karasawa, 1979). He says, "Differences in chromosome number need not be grounds for separation into different species.

Two points: 

1.Huh?? Sorry, dude, but different chromosome counts are one of the primary ways to define a species.

2.As noted before, the main problem is the plant material we're dealing with: mostly line-bred in captivity with who knows what.

I think they're different species based on what I've seen of them and read of them and the chromosome count.

We need to see and compare wild-collected type examples (with the correct chromosome numbers) , and see the original descriptions before we can be absolutely certain, but the chromosome number is a definitive criterion for me.


----------



## labskaus (Jul 30, 2009)

I think I noticed that bit about the difference chromosome numbers in Koopowitz' Book as well, and it made me scratch my head.

Here's a comment on the clone of superbiens that was used to make Cymatodes:

http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12407&highlight=Cymatodes&page=2

Of course it would be great to see a photo or illustration of that old clone, or the ones from the original import.

Sam Tsui currently offers divisions of Paph superbiens var. dayanum "Clarence Schubert". I never came across that varietal name before and couldn't find it on Kews lists. Stephen Manzas nice collection of old articles gives some clues.
There' an article by Reichenbach in his Xenia Orchidaceae on Cyp. superbiens. He describes the species as having a white dorsal with green stripes and petals of the same colour with black-purple spots and blotches. He refers to an older article by himself on superbiens var Dayanum, which he describes as identical to the type apart from the colour: the petals are "dull wine-red" instead of "white spotted with dark cromson". He then goes on on a picture he received under the name superbiens var. dayanum, which in his description is what later became known as "Cyp." dayanum. In fact, in the Xenia Orchideae article on the latter species, he is treating superbiens var. dayanum as a synonym.
So, Reichenbach initially considered a plant shown as Dayi as a variety of superbiens but later decided it was a different species known today as Paph. dayanum. There is no such thing like superbiens var. dayanum. Well, and if the "Clarence Schubert" clone in fact looks like Cymatodes "Beechense", it doesn't even have those "dull red-wine" coloured petals.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 30, 2009)

I have to agree with Tenman and Carsten about the difference in chromosome numbers. That is a BIG, BIG deal. You're talking about the difference of hundreds of thousands of genes present in one and not the other. 
On the plant, Paph superbiens var. dayanum 'Clarence Schubert', Leo, I looked at it last night and it is two small growths but doing well. If it stays on course I might have flowers to show in 3 years!(oh brother!)


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jul 30, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> I have to agree with Tenman and Carsten about the difference in chromosome numbers. That is a BIG, BIG deal. You're talking about the difference of hundreds of thousands of genes present in one and not the other.



This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes a metacentric chromosome in one individual may be equivalent to 2 telocentric chromosomes in another individual. There is no duplication or deletion of genetic material and the metacentric chromosome may even pair more-or-less normally with the 2 telocentric chromosomes at cell division. It might not be a stable situation in terms of evolutionary time but it would not necessarily mean there are 2 species involved. There are also other ways that differing chromosome numbers would not necessarily indicate different species.


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 30, 2009)

PaphMadMan said:


> This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes a metacentric chromosome in one individual may be equivalent to 2 telocentric chromosomes in another individual. There is no duplication or deletion of genetic material and the metacentric chromosome may even pair more-or-less normally with the 2 telocentric chromosomes at cell division. It might not be a stable situation in terms of evolutionary time but it would not necessarily mean there are 2 species involved. There are also other ways that differing chromosome numbers would not necessarily indicate different species.


That is a lot of "if's" and "but's" you're putting out there. So prove to me with your metas and telos that these two species are indeed one.


----------



## Rick (Jul 30, 2009)

We don't clasify tetraploids and triploids as different species.

Realizing thats a different situation. 4N= and 3N=

I am also reminded of a situation that I heard about in human males with an xtra stray y chromosome (apparently this condition is most common in the prison system, and something about increased violence). But still human.
 
What happens (chromosome wise) if you hybridize a var curtsii with nominal superbiens? What's the chromosome count for ciliolare?


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jul 30, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> That is a lot of "if's" and "but's" you're putting out there. So prove to me with your metas and telos that these two species are indeed one.



I'm not trying to prove anything about these species/varieties/whatever they may be. I don't know if my example applies in this specific case, but it is just one possibility of different chromosome counts that could be the same species. Someone else has mention triploids and tetrapoids, and hinted at trisomy, and those are still just a some of the posibilities.

I do know that 'species' is an artificial concept we try to impose on the real biological world. I am never surprised when the real world does not fit neatly into the compartments we try to assign.

If 'curtisii' and 'superbiens' exist in the real world as distinct populations, with distinct and stable morphology, with no intergrades, and the chromosome counts cited are accurate and typical for each population, it is still a matter of judgement whether they should be considered species, varieties or just noted informally as populations that differ. As long as they are each other's closest relatives they can be lumped or split without violating any rules, depending on valid publication.


----------



## Rick (Jul 30, 2009)

I was poking around in Cribb's book and noticed two chromosome counts that were interesting for this discusion

Paph gluacophylum 2n = 36, 37
Paph dayanum 2n = 34, 36

And then the entire group of pardopetalum species 2n = 26


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 31, 2009)

and of course - the real issue is: Are the plants we call superbiens TODAY the same as the plants that were discribed as superbiens back in the 1800's when the description was written? It seems that what is sold as superbiens today, might not be a good match for the original description. This would not be the first orchid to have this sort of identity switch over time.


----------



## Greenpaph (Jul 31, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> I've read the same, curtsii has shorter petals and a "cupped" dorsal. In Cribb's first book, superbiens is painted as a longer, downward hanging petalled flower with the "opened" dorsal.
> Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
> One other point of interest, a number of years back I bought superbiens from Norito off his sales table. The flower was like Leo's superbiens pictured above but it was huge. It could of been a tetraploid but it was twice the size of any curtsii I've seen blooming in recent years.



Rick, I think you are talking about this one: 

I bought it years ago as superbiens 'Mem. Clarence Schubert AM/AOS:


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 31, 2009)

It's lovely!


----------



## Roy (Jul 31, 2009)

Peter, interesting flower, it looks like some of the early P. Goultenianums I've seen. Not really anything like a curtisii or superbiens.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Jul 31, 2009)

Greenpaph said:


> Rick, I think you are talking about this one:
> 
> I bought it years ago as superbiens 'Mem. Clarence Schubert AM/AOS:



I hadn't seen a Mem. Clarence Schubert in years. Thanks for the reminder. I've seen early illustrations (like 1880s) of superbiens that looked like that and a couple photos. Perhaps our perception of superbiens has changed over time.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Aug 1, 2009)

Thanks Peter,
Your photo complements the discussion and does support the idea that what we call superbiens has changed. 



PaphMadMan said:


> I hadn't seen a Mem. Clarence Schubert in years. Thanks for the reminder. I've seen early illustrations (like 1880s) of superbiens that looked like that and a couple photos. Perhaps our perception of superbiens has changed over time.



I definitely agree.


----------



## Rick (Aug 1, 2009)

Then superbians is either a highly variable species (like villosum) or what we are presently calling superbians is essentially a new species with an incorrect label.oke:oke:

The concept Mem Clarence Shubert looks like a cross between lawrencianum and superbiens leaning more towards lawrencianum than what we presently call superbians. The difference between CS and Var curtsii and "var superbians" is so striking, then I don't understand how we can quibble about the differences between var curtsii, and "var superbians" as anything special.

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/sigmatopetalum/superbiens/index.html 

From links to Matt Gore's old site are some pics of Reichenbach's 1880's illustrations of curtsii and suberbiens other than the big spots shown for the illustration of "superbiens" I don't think either illustration takes after Mem Clarence Shubert that much. The illustration of C. curtsii is a dead ringer for present day superbiens. I think Mem. CS looks more like the cross between sukhakulii and curtsii (Oriental Spice) Maybe Mem. CS is actually a hybrid of dayanum and superbiens rather than a variety of it (anyone have a picture of Paph. George Kittel?).


----------



## Rick (Aug 1, 2009)

Roy said:


> Peter, interesting flower, it looks like some of the early P. Goultenianums I've seen. Not really anything like a curtisii or superbiens.



That's a cross of superbiens and callosum.

I agree. Also look at Oriental Spice (superbiens and sukhakulii)

Some how dayanum is attached to Mem. Clarence Shubert. Maybe a complex?


----------



## Rick (Aug 1, 2009)

Has anyone seen or may have a plant referred to as "Paph superbiens var. dayanium"? I have just a plant that hasn't done well for me in recent years so I can't show a PIC. The plant I have carries a clonal name of 'Clarence Shubert'. I may have the spelling wrong but it's close.
[/QUOTE said:


> Rooting around in the archives, I can't find any valid taxonomic reference to a Paph. superbiens var dayanum. However in the 1860's Paph. dayanum went by the name Cyp. superbiens var. dayanum.
> 
> All of a sudden in a fairly recent treatise of Paph judging metrics (which I found googling) I found reference to several awarded clones of something called "Paph. (superbiens var. dayanum) with one of about 6 awarded clones called Mem. Clarence Schubert. Not sure why the species name was both italicized and in parenthesis.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Aug 1, 2009)

http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphprimaries/Lindenia1898(14)638(Gowerianum).jpg

Here's an ancient illustration of curtsii X lawrencianum (Gowerianum)

I think it also captures Clarence Schubert pretty well.


----------



## SlipperKing (Aug 1, 2009)

Thanks Peter, this is indeed the plant/ flower that I ask about. The interesting points of this clone in comparison with Cribb's discription and illustration from his first and second editions is the overall paler flower and the warting of the petals. The Shubert clone having far fewer spots but much larger ones. The petal tips don't have the partial twist in the Shubert as well.
Now, for the P. superbiens var. dayanum 'Mem Clarence Shubert' that I originally ask about, may of come about because of the original discription of the species dayanum. Again, in Cribb's book the early discriptions of Paph dayanum where called Cyp.superbiens var dayanum.


----------



## tenman (Aug 1, 2009)

I found another old rendering of 'superbiens', listed as : Paphiopedilum superbiens (as syn.Cypripedium superbiens)Illustration in:H. G. Reichenbach:"Xenia Orchidacea"vol. 2 fig 103(1874), at:

http://tinyurl.com/luesh7

From these three renderings it is clear that what we are calling superbiens corresponds more closely to the species identified in the 1870's as curtisii, which is more apparently a distinct species from these illustrations, and that the original 'superbiens' either doesn't exist anymore in cultivation or perhaps has become mislabelled through the years, but clearly does not exist labelled 'curtisii'. Probably some of the plants in the current group are hybrids, either of these two species or with a third. There is a good deal of variation but all the plants and pics I see seem to be dominated by curtisii. Interestingly enough, Koopowitz reverses his types between his two OD checklists, 1995 and 2000 (he pulled a similar switch with philippinense and roebbelinii, showing a true philippinense in 1995 - very distinct from roebbelinii - but showing roebbelinii for both in 2000). The pics in Birk's book show distinctly different staminodes and so do the 1870's drawings. I find the conclusion, based on the 19th century drawings and the different chromosome numbers, inescapable that they are indeed different species, with all of the ones we see now being curtisii (or a hybrid of it and superbiens or another species) and superbiens being a 'lost' species.


----------



## Rick (Aug 1, 2009)

Rick

I don't know if you were able to follow or open all the links I posted, but what seems to have happened is that someone presented (1984?) what they thought was a Paph dayanum (with amazing color) for judging under the archaic synonym Paph. superbiens var dayanum. The plant ultimately was the awarded Mem. Clarence Schubert, which obviously is a hybrid. It looks like a hybrid with dayanum influence, and is very similar in appearance to the suk/curtsii hybrid Oriental Spice. Maybe it was just a matter of an ancient illegible tag, or maybe they thought they had the "true" dayanum just as we have been claiming it was the "true" superbiens.

However the ancient 1880 illustrations of Reichenbach for curtsii and superbiens really aren't that far off (especially the illustration labeled as Cyp. curtsii) the present day descriptions and photos of Leo's superbiens flowers. It does not appear that what was described in 1880 is different from what we now think is superbiens or curtsii.


----------



## Rick (Aug 2, 2009)

tenman said:


> I found another old rendering of 'superbiens', listed as : Paphiopedilum superbiens (as syn.Cypripedium superbiens)Illustration in:H. G. Reichenbach:"Xenia Orchidacea"vol. 2 fig 103(1874), at:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/luesh7
> 
> From these three renderings it is clear that what we are calling superbiens corresponds more closely to the species identified in the 1870's as curtisii, which is more apparently a distinct species from these illustrations, and that the original 'superbiens' either doesn't exist anymore in cultivation or perhaps has become mislabelled through the years, but clearly does not exist labelled 'curtisii'. Probably some of the plants in the current group are hybrids, either of these two species or with a third. There is a good deal of variation but all the plants and pics I see seem to be dominated by curtisii. Interestingly enough, Koopowitz reverses his types between his two OD checklists, 1995 and 2000 (he pulled a similar switch with philippinense and roebbelinii, showing a true philippinense in 1995 - very distinct from roebbelinii - but showing roebbelinii for both in 2000). The pics in Birk's book show distinctly different staminodes and so do the 1870's drawings. I find the conclusion, based on the 19th century drawings and the different chromosome numbers, inescapable that they are indeed different species, with all of the ones we see now being curtisii (or a hybrid of it and superbiens or another species) and superbiens being a 'lost' species.



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paphiopedilum_superbiens_Orchi_05.jpg

Here's a picture of a long petaled relatively large spotted "superbiens" that is closer to the ancient Reichenbach illustrations. It's a color photo, so it can't be too lost to science.


----------



## tenman (Aug 2, 2009)

Rick said:


> Rick
> However the ancient 1880 illustrations of Reichenbach for curtsii and superbiens really aren't that far off (especially the illustration labeled as Cyp. curtsii) the present day descriptions and photos of Leo's superbiens flowers. It does not appear that what was described in 1880 is different from what we now think is superbiens or curtsii.



Huh?? Maybe I'm not seeing the same pics. The 1870's drawings show two species almost as different as night and day, and the only similarity to what we have today is to curtisii.




Rick said:


> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paphiopedilum_superbiens_Orchi_05.jpg
> 
> Here's a picture of a long petaled relatively large spotted "superbiens" that is closer to the ancient Reichenbach illustrations. It's a color photo, so it can't be too lost to science.



Yes, closer toi the illustration of curtisii. It bears very little resemblance to the 'superbiens'. And, no, curtisii isn't lost. We don't have anything that looks like Reichenbach's drawing that we call superbiens.


----------



## Rick (Aug 2, 2009)

tenman said:


> We don't have anything that looks like Reichenbach's drawing that we call superbiens.



And probably never will. It's a relatively primitive, 130 year old, ARTIST RENDITION, of a plant of unknown origin (They thought it might have come from Java). Reichenbach could have been low on purple, or got tired of drawing all the spots. Even the illustration of curtsii lacks the detail and colors of modern illustrations. Also keep in mind that Reich. described "superbiens" in 1855 and "curtsii" in 1882 almost 30 years later. Maybe his artists skills improved over 30 years, or if he drew them at the same time, then maybe he was going off of memory of a plant that died 30 years earlier. The basic premise of suberbiens having longer somewhat curly petals is there, but I think that's about all you are going to get from ancient drawings. 

The written description is probably more accurate than the drawings, but even then we are talking about a time when people believed in mermaids and sea monsters. So I think more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid.


----------



## tenman (Aug 2, 2009)

Rick said:


> The written description is probably more accurate than the drawings, but even then we are talking about a time when people believed in mermaids and sea monsters. So I think more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid.



I would love to read the original descriptions. Can anyone who has them forward them to me or post them? The problem with "more recent descriptions of plants of known origin are more valid" is that we are simply taking plants which fit our _preconceived notions_ of what a certain species should be, and therefore, simply falling ionto the trap of self-fulfilling prophecy. In on similar case, Guido Braem discovered upon a fresh look at the original descriptions of Paph.glanduliferum that what we were passing off as that species didn't in fact fit the description and were not that species after all. 

It is entirely possible the drawings are correct as well. The flower depicted is closer to something like sukhakulii with its large spots than to curtisii. I can not in good conscience reconcile the drawings and the chromosome numbers at all. They are two separate species and we don't have anything like the original superbiens (which may itself have been a natural hybrid of curtisii and some other species such as sukhakulii for all we know and now be extinct in the wild). The fact that we can't find a 'superbiens' now which matches the drawing does not invalidate the original description.


----------



## SlipperKing (Aug 2, 2009)

You both are makng very good points. Didn't Leo start this thread? where is he?


----------



## Leo Schordje (Aug 3, 2009)

SlipperKing said:


> You both are makng very good points. Didn't Leo start this thread? where is he?



I'm Lurking in the weeds! :evil: I have been following the thread. Tennis and Rick, yourself and the rest are helping me solidify my thoughts. 

I'm leaning towards the idea that the superbiens described in 1855 is no longer in cultivation. What we call superbiens today should have its own name. It is clearly closer to curtisii than anything else. If collection locations could be identified, it may warrant either subspecies or species status. This means there are four species that make up the curtisii-superbiens complex. The plant currently traded around as superbiens, the one currently traded around as curtisii, and the one lost to cultivation that was called superbiens in 1855. And the fourth being the species sold by Ray Rands and photographed in one of the late 1970's articles by Jack Fowlie as the 'true' curtisii. It too seems to be lost to cultivation. 

But this is not a strong opinion on my part, one of the other scenarios may actually turn out to be a better explaination. I am enjoying the thread and have really appreciated the links to the reference photos. Thank you everyone for that. 
Leo


----------



## paphioboy (Jul 17, 2013)

Out of curiosity, I looked up this thread again and realised that a few pictures I have seen recently of the supposedly éxtinct'/not in cultivation superbiens (original one in the description) looks the same as the awarded clone, but very different from the regular perception of a superbiens or curtisii..

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...602816383086662_1699602653_n.jpg&size=720,960

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...602816036420030_1504783395_n.jpg&size=720,960

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uvmTLubmk.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rEoacHiyp.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C_z9pE4ON.../Paphiopedilum+superbiens+(Rchb.f.)+Stein.jpg


----------



## NYEric (Jul 17, 2013)

You're right, that is different from either "superbiens or curtisii". I am not a taxologist so I have no idea what it means!


----------



## Trithor (Jul 18, 2013)

I think you have to be very careful comparing back to old art work, not because of inaccuracy, but rather because plants were imported in their 10's of thousands, and just as now, great value was placed on those that were slightly different. There is no guarantee that the flower was representative of the batch, or even more concerning the habit at the time of collecting every single plant, and destroying those that they were not going to take in order to prevent another collector from getting them. That would have the effect of eradicating populations which may have been distinct, intermediate or exceptional.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 21, 2013)

Reichenbach, Day and the artist who did the drawings for Sanders, were excellent botanical artists, and both were trained in horticultural taxonomy. The would take the time to find a typical example, and illustrate that, rather than illustrating the exceptional. Even Hooker and Low were quite accurate in their drawings. A requisite to being a taxonomist in those days, before photography, was to trained in rendering detail drawings that reflected life. These artists can be counted on to do a good job of representing in their drawings and water colors an accurate representation of what was in front of them.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 22, 2013)

Leo,
it kind of reminds me of the 1980s discussion about the 'lost' sanderianum and how the Reichenbachia print by Moon was somehow a 'fake'. Turned out to be spot on! They took great care IMHO.


----------



## UweM (Jul 23, 2013)

The best souce for identifications is:

Paph. curtisii

http://www.neeri-orchids.ch/Neerach/PaphGrossBilderSeiten/Paph_curtisii.htm

Paph. superbiens

http://www.neeri-orchids.ch/Neerach/PaphGrossBilderSeiten/Paph_superbiens.htm




In the last years some "experts" make crosses with this two typs of Paphs. - the identification is difficult....




In the last year the following plant provided for discussion:






















In an article in the German orchidmagazin "Orchideenjournal 4 / 2012" Holger Perner write, that this plant is the "lost" original Paph. superbiens.


On the left side the 136 years old original drawing from John Day - left the plant:










left = P. curtisii - center = "original" superbiens - right = "previous" superbiens


----------



## NYEric (Jul 23, 2013)

Very cool. Thanks. I would definitely say the "superbiens" on the right is distinct. Can you post a photo of the foliage of the 3 plants?


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 23, 2013)

I love the "original" superbiens. Wow!


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 24, 2013)

The original drawing by John Day definitely supports my belief that we have the names mixed up in the hobby. And the fact that there is a living plant today, in Holger Perner's collection in Germany that matches the John Day drawing quite well says a lot. The true superbiens is the one in the center. The superbiens of commerce needs to be described and named, whether it is relegated to a variety of curtisii or whether it is given a new name, I will leave that to the taxonomists. But it is clear that what we today call superbiens does not match the John Day description. And no matter what has been printed over the years, it is John Day's description and its associated type specimen that counts. Later opinions don't matter. 

John Day's image make it possible that Cymatodes 'Beechiense' is really the hybrid it was originally labelled as. 

And the Paph superbiens var dayanum 'Mem. Clarence Schuber' is not that far away from Day's original drawing. Even the foliage of 'Mem Clarence Schubert' plant resemble the foliage of the Holger Perner new superbiens. 

Thanks UweM, you have shed a lot of light on this.


----------



## UweM (Jul 25, 2013)

...here photos of the foliage of the 3 plants...


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 25, 2013)

Interesting! Thanks.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 25, 2013)

The middle leave look intermediate between the other 2..........


----------



## NYEric (Jul 25, 2013)

Thanks for the foliage photos. The leaves on the middle (original) superbiens are more similar to the v. curtsii on the left than the one on the right, at least to me.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 29, 2013)

Foliage patterns are not "conservative traits" so are not usually used as key indicators to define a species, but foliage patterns can and are included in the constellation of supporting traits that go with recognizing a species, especially in the field. So, I'm not sure what to think about the foliage.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 29, 2013)

Has anyone here seen the 'type' superbiens in the middle offered for asle here in the USA?


----------



## SlipperKing (Jul 29, 2013)

No, just superbiens 'Mem. Clarence Schubert AM/AOS


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 29, 2013)

NYEric said:


> Has anyone here seen the 'type' superbiens in the middle offered for asle here in the USA?



I wish!


----------



## Leo Schordje (Jul 29, 2013)

NYEric said:


> Has anyone here seen the 'type' superbiens in the middle offered for asle here in the USA?



When I was first starting to collect Paphs, back in the early 1980's I had a couple from Ray Rands, that more or less were like the middle superbiens. But they did not survive the test of time, I didn't know enough about growing Paphs then. Ray Rands only imported one batch, I doubt if there are any survivors from that importation I have not seen nor heard of one since. In those days, were were all looking for the dark color curtisii type. That superbiens just wasn't spectacular enough to be interesting. Who knew? 

If I knew then what I know know I'd have an incredible Paph collection. But, Rick Lockwood and Ray B and Bill Argo hadn't invented K-Lite yet, nor did Al Gore get around to inventing the internet. We actually corresponded by US Mail. Amazing times those were.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 29, 2013)

Telephones.


----------

