# Taxonomy Dendr. cuthbertsonii vs. Dendr.agathodaemonis



## Wendelin (Jul 20, 2011)

Perhaps somebody can help!
I read somewhere that cuthbertsonii always gets the stripe on the labellum and agathodaemonis doesn't. Is that the only way you can tell them apart?
I know some taxonomists believe that Dendr.agathodaemonis belongs to Dendr.cuthbertsonii but lets just say it doesn't.

I believe the second one should also be called agathodaemonis:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericinsf/3206841818/
http://i.pbase.com/t1/48/839548/4/126941063.qYhFXJmE.jpg

If somebody gets more informations about this issue I'd be glad to share your knowledge!:wink:


----------



## Roth (Jul 20, 2011)

The traders have 3 categories:

cuthbertsonii: traditional thing we see everywhere.
agathodaemonis is a small leafed cuthbertsonii, the leaves are smoother than a cuth.
sophronitis, very rare, the bulbs are on a rhizome like a bulbo, very tiny bulbs, very tiny leaves, look like an etiolated seedling of cuthbertsonii. The bloom is only orange or red, very big.

For the taxonomist, I don't know what they do with those three name, but for the trade, that's what is expected.


----------



## Braem (Jul 20, 2011)

Roth said:


> The traders have 3 categories:
> 
> cuthbertsonii: traditional thing we see everywhere.
> agathodaemonis is a small leafed cuthbertsonii, the leaves are smoother than a cuth.
> ...


For the taxonomists these three things are the same ... and as D. cuthbertsonii is the oldest valid name (as far as I know .... I haven't looked it up in ages ... but if someone want me to, I will) ... they go under D. cuthbertsonii.


----------



## Wendelin (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks, so far.
That means, the plant called Dendr. agathodaemonis should rather be called Dendr. cuthbertsonii forma/var. agathodaemonis?
Is that the most recent state of affairs? In Taxonomies things are often changing a lot.

And in that case, what makes agathodaemonis be its own forma/var.? Just the different leaves/slim growth-habit or the non-existing stripe on the labellum, like I mentioned before. I'd realy love to know how Taxonomists are working in this case.

I get both at home and they look quite different to me.


----------



## Roth (Jul 21, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> Thanks, so far.
> That means, the plant called Dendr. agathodaemonis should rather be called Dendr. cuthbertsonii forma/var. agathodaemonis?
> Is that the most recent state of affairs? In Taxonomies things are often changing a lot.
> 
> ...



I don't know if taxonomists got live material of all of those and studied them well. As for the variability, there are no known intermediate between those three horticultural forms, so they could be placed or described as new varieties or species ( sophronitis is way different from cuthbertsonii than decockii is). On the other side, we call those plants agathodaemonis, sophronitis, but I did not see the original description. Maybe the two later names are indeed cuthbertsonii synonyms, but the plants traded under that name are undescribed varieties or species...


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> Thanks, so far.
> That means, the plant called Dendr. agathodaemonis should rather be called Dendr. cuthbertsonii forma/var. agathodaemonis?
> Is that the most recent state of affairs? In Taxonomies things are often changing a lot.
> 
> ...


No, that means that agathodaemonis (published 1910) would be a synonym of cuthbertsonii (published 1888) unless there is a difference that is clear. in that case, it could be considered a subspecies, a variant, or a form, depending on how distinct that difference is. And where is the difference between cuthbertsonii and sophronitis (published 1914)?? ...


----------



## Roth (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> No, that means that agathodaemonis (published 1910) would be a synonym of cuthbertsonii (published 1888) unless there is a difference that is clear. in that case, it could be considered a subspecies, a variant, or a form, depending on how distinct that difference is. And where is the difference between cuthbertsonii and sophronitis (published 1914)?? ...



cuthbertsonii in the trade is the widespread one...

agathodaemonis bulbs are long and extremely thin






Photo courtesy of orchidspecies.com

sophronitis looks like that:





Creeping rhizome, extremely tiny bulbs. The space between the bulbs is never below 2cm, usually few centimeters (that photo is not very usual). They mostly arrive dead.

The flowers when compared side by side are indeed different...


----------



## Wendelin (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> No, that means that agathodaemonis (published 1910) would be a synonym of cuthbertsonii (published 1888) unless there is a difference that is *clear*. ........


What could that be? To me , the growths of agathodaemonis, very slender bulbs with narrow thin leaves, are quite different from cuthbertsonii growths, thick, round bulbs and rigid leaves.
What is it, taxonomists are looking for, in case they want to check relationships between plants?


----------



## Roth (Jul 24, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> What could that be? To me , the growths of agathodaemonis, very slender bulbs with narrow thin leaves, are quite different from cuthbertsonii growths, thick, round bulbs and rigid leaves.
> What is it, taxonomists are looking for, in case they want to check relationships between plants?



The taxonomist care about the flowers, in this case, they are clearly very close. But they could deserve the status of genuine varieties, for me that's quite clear... The other thing, the plants sold as 'sophronitis' are always red-orange, it does not exist any other color.


----------



## John Boy (Jul 24, 2011)

*A diffence that is clear....?! Okay, I guess we can supply that. Though "A diffence that is clear" in the case of cuthbertsonii, very much depends (in the true sence of the meaning) on the beholders eyesight! Let me give it a quick go: *

First things first:*

Well, I’m not really skilled in any way whatsoever when it comes to taxonomy. *

To be very honest: 99% of the time I could not care less, and in some cases it point blank annoys me.
In the case of cuthbertsonii I have a few ideas of my own, but they will not really exhaust any scientific or taxonomically relevant demands.

It is my believe that for more than one reason, (and I guess there`s taxonomically valid stuff in there as well) cuthbertsonii and agathodaemonis need to be regarded as different species. There, I said it! 
Having said that, let me start by pointing out that I only started collecting both species very recently, but have been involved with both on a propagation level for about 20 years. I’ve known for many years that both “names” require the ultimate skill, and a hardcore technical set-up to be cultivated successfully over time. Infact, I would go as far as to say that there’s probably not much else on this planet that could beat cuthbertsonii when it comes to “killed-in-cultivation-rates”. Generally that was the reason why I only recently started to collect these plants. That technically demanding aspect was one point, but since I feel confident to now have the set-up required (at the lowest possible level) I started buying a few plants, KNOWING that I’m buying trouble as well as asking for trouble. The other matter is availability and plant quality. It has only been for a year or so now, that fantastic quality plants are becoming available in Europe, mostly originating from the U.S. and Japan. For many years cuthbersonii was kept a secret, and very few people could actually find/buy plants of insufficient quality, most of them direct imports form PNG, and therefore doomed to die within the first few days unless they were started off in a fully automated cold-house. 
These days cuthbertsonii is as available as it never was available before. Not just that, also some of the quality we see is star-raving-madness. They come in most colours (except yellow and white), even bicolors, and sometimes with 50+ bulbs. That basically just means: someone out there hast mastered their needs… This will go on for as long as it will take most people to kill their plants, which they will. It’s a basic and simple matter of time. Killing a 50+ bulb plant will just take a bit longer… I have no doubts that this will have been achieved in about 6 months form now, when cuthbertsonii (again) will be called “impossible to be cultivated” and the likes of Popow and other reputable importing nurseries will have to deal with angry customers every other day demanding their money back. They will then again stop dealing with cuthbertsonii, and we’ll be back to square one….
I myself start seeing the first signs of trouble with my plants after 6-8 months, meaning: I have to change and adapt in order to keep my plants alive. It comes down to admitting for all of us that finding great plants does not mean we’ll be okay and happily ever after…, or blame it on the nursery we got them from, but to admit that no matter what our skills are: we’re just dealing with a very tricky, complex and let’s face it, difficult group of plants here (coming from one of the most extreme habitats possible), and that very few of us know how to cultivate well over time. In other words: we’re dealing with plants, which an overwhelming share of its keepers kills within no time…

What an outbreak ey!!! Sorry for this insight into a very mad orchid mind!

Now, what sets these 2 apart? Dend. cuthbertsonii morphologically look completely different to agathodaemonis. That’s my most important point. 
First up, and most importantly we have to distinguish 2 different groups of cuthbertsonii as far as I can talk about them. There’s the standard, wild collected plant from PNG, which is currently imported into Europe by the tens of thousands. They come as tiny divisions, rootless, dehydrated, with no more than 4-6 bulbs, mostly shedding their first leafs by the time they arrive here. The dealer in Europe will mount these as quickly as possible and sell them on for €15 (retail) as quick as he can, not to loose his investment. I’d guess that 80% of these plants are dead within 4 weeks after leaving PNG or Indonesia. The other group comes from the U.S. or Japan. These plants are a very VERY different kettle of fish, ultra-high-end breeding plants, selected for colour, vigour and most importantly: chromosome reasons. Looking at plants as well as flowers these are mostly 3N or 4N plants, and you’ll not find this information on the labels. These 50+ bulb plants have been selectively bred for appearance and size. Normally these plants are 2 to 3x the physical size of a wild collected plant, and that is not due to cultivation. When comparing these cuthbersonii plants, especially within judging, it will become impossible for the judges to tell the differences between them. They will therefore potentially deal with a normal 2n plant vs. a 4n or 7n plant, resulting in unfairness and confusion because they’ll be asked to compare a Ferrari with a Scoda (built in 1982).

Given, that from a taxonomist perspective we can agree that these 2 different “versions” of “modern cuthbertsonii breeding” exist?!, I would suggest a second point, more an idea, for which I have no proof. Geographical distance can be a valid point when naming plants, right??? I have a very strong feeling, based on cultural experience, that Dend. agathodaemonis would grow in a much different habitat or at the very least lower altitude than cuthbertsonii. From what I have seen in my culture agathodaemonis demands much higher temperatures to do well. Not just that: high temperatures seem to trigger massive vegetative growing. If that would be true: I would suggest that agathodaemonis grows on considerably lower altitudes than cuthbertsonii. Taxonomically: would that not at least give way to reason that we’d potentially be talking about a different population, maybe even and evolutionary separate population of what could have been one and the same a long time ago? 
Let me just work in a few pictures for your consideration. It’s much easier to show the differences, than to type another hour….

Here’s what I’m cultivating as Dend. agathodaemonis:
By the way: has anyone besides me wondered why agathodaemonis comes in deep red, and pink only, but cuthbertsonii in nearly every possible colour including all shades of bicolor? It seems odd that agathodaemonis does not appear to be covering that sort of spectrum, does it not? Besides: I’ve not even heard of a pink agathodaemonis in Europe yet… which…talking available material means: agathodaemonis is reduced to only one available colour in Europe, being red.


















On the other side, this is one of my possibly 4n or 3n plants, could they look more different to agathodaemonis?




















Another, 3rd point would be: cuthbersonii other than agathodaemonis has hairy, nobbly capsules, or has (altogether) as a plant, a hairy, nobbly disposition… 

Non-hair agathodaemonis detail:







Dend. cuthbertsonii detail:







This is just to compare a few flowers. I’ve pinched a agathodaemonis flower and placed it on a cuthbertsonii just to show the minor flower differences… see if you can tell them apart!



















Normal orange cuthbertsonii vs. potential 4N bicolor:












Enough for one day….
Over’n out!


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

John Boy said:


> *A diffence that is clear....?! Okay, I guess we can supply that. Though "A diffence that is clear" in the case of cuthbertsonii, very much depends (in the true sence of the meaning) on the beholders eyesight! Let me give it a quick go: *
> 
> First things first:*
> 
> ...


Part 1 ( I have to do this in 2 parts because the text is too long ... they say) OK ... here is the taxonomist that annaoys you. But I have one question to begin with ... you say "99% of the time you don't care". So why do you make such a fuss about it. If you don't care ... sell them as separate species ... (I don't care) and in this (supposedly) free world, anyone has the right to make a fool of him/herself.

Now for the 1% you claim to care:
1) you are not a taxonomist ... did you study botany? ... I guess not (but maybe I am mistaken) ... so why do you think you know better than the taxonomists?
2) having collected a plant for 20 years are not does not qualify you as a botanist. I gives you insight into its ecology, which is important, and even part of taxonomy (as I see it).

(to be continued)


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

John Boy said:


> *A diffence that is clear....?! Okay, I guess we can supply that. Though "A diffence that is clear" in the case of cuthbertsonii, very much depends (in the true sence of the meaning) on the beholders eyesight! Let me give it a quick go: *
> 
> First things first:*
> 
> ...


Part #2

3) cuthbertsonii is never been a secret. It was just that the plant was generally referred to by most taxonomists (including myself) as D. sophronites ... and that was a mistake. Also Richard Warren has been propagating cuthbertsonii in all variations by seed for about 30 years now. 
4) why would Popow and his colleagues have customers come and ask their money back? And if so, what does this have to do with the taxonomy of the species?
5) you talk of morphological differences .. but you don't say which ones.
6) No plant what so ever is being imported into Europe by the "tens of thousands" (except for Dutch tulips). ... There just isn't a market ... In the whole of Europe ther may be 200-300 people that would buy an imported plant ... if at all. Don't forget ... plenty of seedlings from Richard are now full grown and blooming plants.

(to be continued)


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

John Boy said:


> *A diffence that is clear....?! Okay, I guess we can supply that. Though "A diffence that is clear" in the case of cuthbertsonii, very much depends (in the true sence of the meaning) on the beholders eyesight! Let me give it a quick go: *
> 
> First things first:*
> 
> ...


Part # 3

7) growing at different altitudes is not a taxonomic characteristic ... but different altitudes CAN have an impact om the morphology of the plant (not the flower ... ).

So instead of ranting and writing stuff that is not at all important for taxonomy, why don't you get to the basics, and label your pictures properly. What I KNOW is the following:
a) cuthbertsonii and sophronites are conspecific ... means they are the same thing under different names.
b) if your top picture is what you call agathodaemonis, I will grant you that I think seeing a difference in the size of the lip ... however, I would have to have better photographs (close-ups) of ther flower and especially of the column with lip. Then I can try to decide whether we have two different species ... 
From the pictures you have posted, I can't see ANY difference


----------



## John Boy (Jul 24, 2011)

Sorry to say, but then: You have missed the entire question. These things can't be discussed in black and white. If that is what you need to do to your work I can't help.
Andart # 3

"7) growing at different altitudes is not a taxonomic characteristic ... but different altitudes CAN have an impact om the morphology of the plant (not the flower ... )." so sorry, you've lost me there agin! The *plant is different, but the flower isn't? Is that why I'm not really inerested in taxonomy?*


----------



## Wendelin (Jul 24, 2011)

First of all, thanks, John Boy, for having an open mind and sharing your thoughts and pictures with us! *Very important!
*
For instance , this hairy flower thing I didn't know. 
To Mr. Bream: Picture 7 shows no hair on the flowerstem alongside the spur of a agathodaemonis flower.The next picture shows, that cuthbertsonii gets a lot of hair there. So not just the plants ,also the flowers show differences. They are consistent in shape but that's all.


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

John Boy said:


> Sorry to say, but then: You have missed the entire question. These things can't be discussed in black and white. If that is what you need to do to your work I can't help.
> Andart # 3
> 
> "7) growing at different altitudes is not a taxonomic characteristic ... but different altitudes CAN have an impact om the morphology of the plant (not the flower ... )." so sorry, you've lost me there agin! The *plant is different, but the flower isn't? Is that why I'm not really inerested in taxonomy?*


Biology is not philosophy ... either there are differences are there are none. I don't need to work on "thing being between black and white". If you want that ask Heather whthere we have a psychologist on the forum.

And the fact is that differences in plants can be caused by climatic differences ... It seems you don't understand anything about the issue.


----------



## Braem (Jul 24, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> First of all, thanks, John Boy, for having an open mind and sharing your thoughts and pictures with us! *Very important!
> *
> For instance , this hairy flower thing I didn't know.
> To Mr. Bream: Picture 7 shows no hair on the flowerstem alongside the spur of a agathodaemonis flower.The next picture shows, that cuthbertsonii gets a lot of hair there. So not just the plants ,also the flowers show differences. They are consistent in shape but that's all.


OK .. so I will shave to morrow morning and sign in with a second identity. Hairiness on a flower alone is not enough to make ANYTHING different


----------



## Wendelin (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> OK .. so I will shave to morrow morning and sign in with a second identity. Hairiness on a flower alone is not enough to make ANYTHING different


Nobody said that! 
If you are working on a new identity, you are not trying to put facts together ,have an eye on coincidences, and so on? That's what's happening here.
*We are not trying to sign in a new species we are trying to learn!*


----------



## John Boy (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> Biology is not philosophy ... either there are differences are there are none. I don't need to work on "thing being between black and white". If you want that ask Heather whthere we have a psychologist on the forum.
> 
> And the fact is that differences in plants can be caused by climatic differences ... It seems you don't understand anything about the issue.




Fine, there's one word for what you say:

Rubbish!!!

PS: "And the fact is that differences in plants can be caused by climatic differences ... It seems you don't understand anything about the issue"

It must be very comforting to have a fixed income as a prof., I wish I was one, at least I would be right by "job-profile"!


Sorry not to be able to talk to you!


----------



## Kavanaru (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> OK .. so I will shave to morrow morning and sign in with a second identity. Hairiness on a flower alone is not enough to make ANYTHING different



with all the respect, this is the MOST childish comment I have ever read coming from a taxonomist (and yes, I know and have worked with MANY of them!)

It wouldn't be the first time two species are separated, only because one is hirsute and the other not! 

as for teh dendrobium species discussed here, whether they are two different species or not, I think it onl yhave to wait until someone revise the section of the genus with a different mind and separate them... I think along thi sthread, several differences between both "species" have been shown... if someone does not want to see, he/she will not see them, but I do not think it is a reason to attack anyone here...

Thansk John Boy for the pictures (yes, I agree with Braem, they should have been better labelled! ) and pointing out what you have seen working with them.


----------



## Roth (Jul 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> Part #2
> 
> 3) cuthbertsonii is never been a secret. It was just that the plant was generally referred to by most taxonomists (including myself) as D. sophronites ... and that was a mistake. Also Richard Warren has been propagating cuthbertsonii in all variations by seed for about 30 years now.
> 4) why would Popow and his colleagues have customers come and ask their money back? And if so, what does this have to do with the taxonomy of the species?
> ...



In fact none or Richard Warren plants are around anymore, or maybe a couple. They all come from Golden Gate Orchids, through Japan for some of them. Those big, many colored cuths with huge flowers that you see in Europe are in fact polyploids. It is unclear what their ploidy level is however, some are 4n, some are 3n. Some have been counted.

Second, for the flower quality, the award quality ones are the Papua New Guinea strains, that have not been imported for many years, over 15 for sure. The low quality ones come from Irian Jaya, where they are sold very cheaply. 

There are some good colonies however close to Jayapura but the standard traders get their plants in bulk. They are divided when they arrive, otherwise they are indeed 30+ bulbs per plant.

agathodaemonis always came as red, same for the sophronits plants. There is no variation at all in those two types. I heard about an albino one once, very expensive, and two pink agathodaemonis, but never seen them by myself.

On the other side, dendrobium laevifolium is considered a distinct species, but there is less variation between laevifolium and cuthbertsonii than between plants sold as sophronitis and cuthbertsonii. By the way, laevifolium, in one Pacific island, has all the color forms, like cuthbertsonii, and some plants can be over 20 cm tall.


----------



## Braem (Jul 25, 2011)

Roth said:


> In fact none or Richard Warren plants are around anymore, or maybe a couple. They all come from Golden Gate Orchids, through Japan for some of them. Those big, many colored cuths with huge flowers that you see in Europe are in fact polyploids. It is unclear what their ploidy level is however, some are 4n, some are 3n. Some have been counted.
> 
> Second, for the flower quality, the award quality ones are the Papua New Guinea strains, that have not been imported for many years, over 15 for sure. The low quality ones come from Irian Jaya, where they are sold very cheaply.
> 
> ...


Well, I met Richard Warren last July in England and his business is going well ...


----------



## Roth (Jul 27, 2011)

Braem said:


> Well, I met Richard Warren last July in England and his business is going well ...



Yes, but his cuthbertsonii are to be found nowhere today. The remaining, I don't know, but for sure cuthbertsonii are either coming from Golden Gate/Japan/Ecuagenera strain ( that's the Golden Gate polyploid strains), or the wild today.

For the wild plants, the minimum order is one box 60x40x30 cm, or the collectors reject the order. Been there, seen that


----------



## goods (Jul 28, 2011)

I would just like to say before I post a comment that I am nothing close to a taxonomist, and I have never even seen a D. cuthbertsonii or D.agathodaemonis in person. I am only going by the pictures and information in this thread. I have just noticed a few details in this thread that no one seems to have pointed out yet.

1) In the picture John Boy posted of D. agathodaemonis, the plant doesn't seem to have the "warty" leaves cuthbertsonii is known for. If I've not mistaken the "warts" are a distinctive feature of cuthbertsonii.

2) John Boy mentions that there is a temperature difference in the culture of the two. This indicates that the plants come from different altitudes. Couldn't this also indicate they come from different geographical regions and could possibly represent two distinct populations?

Again, these are just my observations.


----------



## Braem (Jul 28, 2011)

goods said:


> I would just like to say before I post a comment that I am nothing close to a taxonomist, and I have never even seen a D. cuthbertsonii or D.agathodaemonis in person. I am only going by the pictures and information in this thread. I have just noticed a few details in this thread that no one seems to have pointed out yet.
> 
> 1) In the picture John Boy posted of D. agathodaemonis, the plant doesn't seem to have the "warty" leaves cuthbertsonii is known for. If I've not mistaken the "warts" are a distinctive feature of cuthbertsonii.
> 
> ...


very well observed ... 
the temperature difference is of little taxonomic importance as two different populations (possibly from diffrenth altitudes) do not mean that tther are two different species.
The warty leaves is more imprtant, but to make a judgement on that, there is need for mor that a picture.


----------



## labskaus (Aug 3, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, I looked up what the taxonomists wrote in the old days. The descriptions of cuthbertsonii, sophronitis, trachyphyllum (not considered here) and asperifolium (not considered here) are freely available through online libraries.
Schlechter wrote: this species (sophronites) is cloesly related to cuthbertsonii, but differs in its larger flowers, a longer mentum and a narrower labellum. The cristall-like papilli on the ovary are significantly larger than in the other two species (i.e. cuthbertsonii and trachyphyllum). From the latin description: folii... papillis sparsis muriculatis superne asperatis, subacutis vel apiculatis;... i.e. the leaves were sparsly papillose. The stems were 0.7-1.5 cm long and 2.5-3.5 mm thick. The plant was described as up to 5 cm tall and caespitose, that means tufted. Leaves were 1-3 cm long and 2.5-4 mm broad. These measurements appear pretty close to my cuthbertsoniis, and there is no mention of elongated rhizomes like Xavier mentioned for the plants in trade.
Whatever these "sophronites of the trade" are, their habitus doesn't fit Schlechters concept.

D. trachyphyllum was described as having broad tightly pappilose leaves with flowers papillose on the outside. Ovarium similar to cuthbertsonii, but the flowers have narrower segments and are rose-red mit whitish petals and lip (whereas both cuthbertsonii and sophronite are scarlet red with yellow or orange lips, having a darker rim).
There are currently plants in the trade with flowers just like that.

Schlechter also wrote that he wasn't sure if agathodaemonis would fit in his section Cuthbertsonia, since J.J.Smith "hadn't mentioned the peculiar hairiness" and the habitus was a bit different. Schlechter wrote about the ovary, because he based his section Cuthbertsonia on the "peculiar hairiness of the ovary". Smith didn't write about the ovary in his description of agathodaemonis. He also did not mention the flower colour at all. He wrote somewhere else that most of his descriptions were based on samples in formaline... But: if the type specimens in some herbarium (Bogor, or lost?) or a drawing of it, don't show colour, colour can't be used to differentiate agathodaemonis from cuthbertsonii. Doesn't matter if there's a dark rim on the labellum or not. And last:
Terrrestre. Caules ramosissimi, tenues, internodii ad c. 0.4 cm longis. Folia parva, lanceolata, brevi-acutata vel mucronata, superne ciliolata, c. 0.8-1.4 cm longa.
That's the words of J. J. Smith he used for describing the habitus of agathodaemonis. The leaves were described as being ciliate (hairy) on the upper side. Smooth leaves is not in his concept for agathodaemonis.

Finally: Dwarf, tufty, except the calyx-tube glabrous;... Leaves small, broad-linear, narrowed towards both ends, rather acute;... That's the words of F.v. Mueller when he described the plant and leaves of cuthbertsonii. Notice anything on papillose or ciliate? These peculiar "stalked glandules" are typically on the ovary in all members of section Cuthbertsonia and may, or may not (according to Schlechter) be on the leaves as well.

I'd love to see drawings of all the types.

My personal impression: the plants in trade as agathodaemonis and maybe sophronites as well look quite different from what is in trade as cuthbertsonii. Wether they are different species, or varieties/forms of cuthbertsonii is not up to me to decide. The names agathodaemonis and sophronites are not correctly applied to these plants.
I think I've read in some travel account that smooth and rough-leaved forms sometimes grow together. I've seen only one, non-representative import from Indonesia, which contained a lot of small-growing (and blooming) plants with smooth -to sparsely papillose plants and flowers with or without a dark rim on the lip. The plants were growing together on the very same branches. Some were sold as agathodaemonis, the others as cuthbertsonii.

You may notice by now that I'm in favour of a broader species concept for cuthbertsonii...


----------



## Wendelin (Aug 3, 2011)

Thanks for putting all this informations together, Carsten. I find it very useful.

This is a normal Dendr. cuthbertsonii Pink





thick, rounded bulbs with papillose leafs

This one is bought as Dendr. cuthbertsonii like




small narrow bulbs, and leafes are also slim and rather nonpapillose

Perhaps John Boy can post a similar picture of his agathodaemonis for comparrison.


----------



## Roth (Aug 3, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> Thanks for putting all this informations together, Carsten. I find it very useful.
> 
> This one is bought as Dendr. cuthbertsonii like
> 
> ...



I got the same recently too, the later type comes from Wamena, and usually has pink flowers. I think it is only a cuthbertsonii for that type, but not agathodaemonis or sophronitis.


----------



## Braem (Aug 4, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> Thanks for putting all this informations together, Carsten. I find it very useful.
> 
> This is a normal Dendr. cuthbertsonii Pink
> 
> ...


From seeing those pictures, I tend to agree on two different species ...


----------



## labskaus (Aug 4, 2011)

Mrs. Elsner has these on her list (I assume, Wendelin, yours is from her). The bicolor flower on her web site is what I mentioned above as fitting to the description of D. trachyphyllum. The habitus of this one is quite different from Schlechters description.
I think this is the same:

http://www.pbase.com/glazemaker/image/116906259

and this too

http://www.pbase.com/rogiervanvugt/image/126941064


----------



## Wendelin (Aug 4, 2011)

The plant is from Mrs. Elsner, yes.
The pink/white flower shown on her Internetshop was given by the vendor in PNG as she told me.There is another flowerpicture of this batch blooming in Germany and that one is white with a hint of purple. I'm not the owner of that picture but I'm sure by the end of the week I'll be able to post it here.

Carsten ,I know these two links you posted and I agree with you that they could much likely be the same type than the ones Mrs. Elsner is selling.


----------



## Roth (Aug 6, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> The plant is from Mrs. Elsner, yes.
> The pink/white flower shown on her Internetshop was given by the vendor in PNG as she told me.There is another flowerpicture of this batch blooming in Germany and that one is white with a hint of purple. I'm not the owner of that picture but I'm sure by the end of the week I'll be able to post it here.
> 
> Carsten ,I know these two links you posted and I agree with you that they could much likely be the same type than the ones Mrs. Elsner is selling.



It is not from PNG at all, but from Wamena, I have been there a few months ago, and the photo is from the reseller in Indonesia, I ll post some more this week of that form. There are several different species growing together, including those cuthbertsonii/agathodaermonis, and cuthbertsonii/sophronitis but the hybrids are very, very rare. The one from your picture ('cuthbertsonii like' as per the seller advertisement in Indo) occurs with vexillarius blue, brevicaule, decockii, and a couple other things. As a note too, I have seen thousands of brevicaule, thousands of decockii, including in boxes, or on the same branch in the wild, all in bloom, but I have seen very few hybrids, maybe 5 plants total, despite the fact that they are in bloom at the same time, and the orange color of the flowers is exactly the same ( but the flower structure is different as it its size).

Edit: just had a look at Elsner price for those cuthbertsonii like and the vexillarius, they are, to say the least, extremely expensive, as they come mixed by box. One box would be worth about 75,000eur at that retail price...


----------



## Wendelin (Aug 7, 2011)

HI Roth!
I'd be very happy to see more pics of this plant and the flowers. 

I don't quite understand what you are talking about hybrids. Are you assuming the last one ,from Wamena, could be a hybrid?


----------



## Wendelin (Aug 7, 2011)

These are the pics from Mrs. Elsners Dendrobiums that bloomed in Germany.
Perhaps the lack of colour is due to opening up in a box without light.


----------



## Roth (Aug 7, 2011)

Wendelin said:


> These are the pics from Mrs. Elsners Dendrobiums that bloomed in Germany.
> Perhaps the lack of colour is due to opening up in a box without light.



I know the plants have been screened by someone in Indonesia before they were exported to the wholesaler ( Elsner was one of the retailers) 

:evil::evil::evil:, I visited the seller in Indonesia some months ago. I ll post a picture of mine this week.


----------



## Wendelin (Aug 25, 2011)

*I got them all together now*

Sold as Dendr. agathodaemonis





Sold as 'like cuthbertsonii' and looks like a hybrid between the two of them









Sold as Dendr. cuthbertsonii


----------

