# Paph eliotianum vs. paph rothschildianum



## AdamD (Dec 5, 2013)

Can anyone shed light on this? Why the distinction of a new species for this plant in particular, and is there more than one clone (Penn Valley)?


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 5, 2013)

I just saw that cross advertised on Ebay. To the best of my knowledge, "elliotianum" is just rothchildianum.


----------



## AdamD (Dec 5, 2013)

I thought the same, until I saw Sam Tsui selling a division of Penn Valley under the name eliotianum... Check it out. http://www.orchidinnusa.com/divisions.jsp


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 5, 2013)

Is it the name given to rothschildianum before rothschildianum became accepted? That would make sense for the "history" part.


----------



## naoki (Dec 5, 2013)

The identity of P. elliotianum doesn't seem to be resolved yet. According to Braem and Cirron's book, they don't think they are synonymous. The confusing part is that the type herbarium sheet in kew is clearly P. rothschildianum, but the original description was not based on this specimen. Braem considers that P. ellitottianum is not synonymous to P. rothschildianum, and it is a lost species. Maybe 'Pen Valley' was mis-identified as P. elliotianum when it was awarded?


----------



## Scott Ware (Dec 6, 2013)

They may not currently be considered synonyms, but to keep the matter as confusing as possible, several _Paph. rothschildianum_ plants were presented in the past to judges as _Paph. elliottianum_ and were awarded as such.


----------



## Tom499 (Dec 6, 2013)

Here's Kew's view on the name

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-147243

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-147075


----------



## naoki (Dec 6, 2013)

That seems to be Phillip Cribb's view. Braem's view is somewhat interesting (although it is not completely evidence based argument). P. elliotianum were separately described by 3 different people when 1000 or so P. ellitianum were brought into Europe by Sander. 3 people thought that it is different from P. rothschildianum, therefore they published the description. One of the three is Reichenbach, who described P. rothschildianum. So Braem thought that it is unlikely that these 3 experts make the same mistake independently. Obviously we won't know which view is correct, but it is more fun to think that P. elliotianum will be re-discovered in Philippine some day!


----------



## Paphluvr (Dec 7, 2013)

*P. elliottianum vs rothschildianum*

According to the Catherine Cash book "The Slipper Orchids", © 1991 by Timber Press, Inc.

"Cribb (1987) has effectively destroyed every argument for retention of the binomial _P. elliottianum_ (O'Brien) Stein, in correct usage. In light of his evidence, growers may wish to relabel such specimens as _P. rothschildianum_."

However, realize that this was published 22 years ago.


----------



## Kanaka John (Dec 18, 2013)

*elliotianum vs roth*

I was there 50 years ago when Norris Powell and Ray Rand brought in elliotianum. It was a big whoopi-do then as to whether it was Roth or not. Many people paid a lot of money for the "new" species. And I think that has why the name has lasted for so long, pride goes a long ways. Even then the argument was that at best it was a var of roth. Now with genetic testing we know for sure that 99.9% were pure roth and the other .1% was adductum. If you point out differences on one and then on the other it makes a fun shell game. This all came to my memory a couple of weeks ago when a plant was posted of Roth x Elliotianum 'fox valley'.
I bought the plant because it brought back some fond memories of my early paph years and all the people I knew. It is a great pure-roth plant and a piece of orchid history. Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce about the fun days you missed in orchids, well almost, you do have kovachii don't you???


----------



## Kanaka John (Dec 18, 2013)

Penn valley bought their plant directly from Norris Powell. There may be more plants and tags sold with that name attached, but there is only one real elliotianum 'penn valley' AM/AOS. Personally been with Norris through the events.


----------



## tenman (Dec 21, 2013)

Paphluvr said:


> According to the Catherine Cash book "The Slipper Orchids", © 1991 by Timber Press, Inc.
> 
> "Cribb (1987) has effectively destroyed every argument for retention of the binomial _P. elliottianum_ (O'Brien) Stein, in correct usage. In light of his evidence, growers may wish to relabel such specimens as _P. rothschildianum_."
> 
> However, realize that this was published 22 years ago.



Yes, and realize that Cribb is an idiot and not an authority for anything.


----------



## Trithor (Dec 21, 2013)

tenman said:


> Yes, and realize that Cribb is an idiot and not an authority for anything.



That is a harsh statement, and an attack which in my opinion does not have a place on this forum


----------

