# paph. Delliana or paph. Annabellchen??



## Candace (Mar 21, 2007)

I've got a first bloom seedling of paph. delenatii x paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum just opening now. 

Is paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum the same as paph liemianum? If so, the cross would be paph. annabell chen?? 

From what it looks like on the web, the flower opening looks nothing like Delliana...

I've already got an another Annabell Chen opening( from Ratcliff) so I'll be able to compare the two shortly. Anyone have a decent picture of an Annabell Chen? Although my other one bloomed last year, I didn't take a photo and I don't remember what it looked like. I didn't find any photos when I googled. I'll probably only keep one as I don't have the room for several of every cross I've got. I thought I was buying a Delliana, but I THINK I ended up with another annabell chen. Thought I'd ask the taxonomy specialists.


----------



## TADD (Mar 21, 2007)

Did you answer your own question in there somewhere? I believe it is a Annabellchen.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 21, 2007)

Hmmm, I think chamberlainianum = victoria-regina, and that liemianum is a separate species.
http://slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/index.html


----------



## Candace (Mar 21, 2007)

No, I need to know if paph. chamberlianum v. liemianum is the same as paph liemianum. Then, my question will be answered.


----------



## Heather (Mar 21, 2007)

I think it is not the same, Candace.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 21, 2007)

I also think the spelling should be chamberlainianum, not chamberlianum. Sometimes tags are wrong...


----------



## Candace (Mar 21, 2007)

> I think it is not the same, Candace.



Then, theoretically I should have a Delliana, but it doesn't look like ones on the net. Mine will have much more of the spotting. The chamberlainianum was the capsule parent, so that's probably why... 

Thanks for the link, Slipperfan, I'll have to bookmark it.


----------



## NYEric (Mar 22, 2007)

Heavy duty resource, thanx.


----------



## slippertalker (Mar 22, 2007)

Paph chamberlainianum= Paph victoria-reginae

Paph chamberlainianum var liemianum = Paph liemianum

Most taxonomists have seperated Paph liemianum from Paph chamberlainianum and it seems to breed differently. In my view, it is distinct and a very attractive species. 
Paph liemianum also has a close relationship to Paph primulinum and its variety purpurascens, they could easily be considered as an albinistic population of liemianum.


----------



## Candace (Mar 22, 2007)

O.K. you guys are confusing me with opposite answers Who's right here? I think I'm with slippertalker here and that chamberlainianum var liemianum and Paph liemianum are the same species...


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 22, 2007)

I would agree with slippertalker


----------



## Leo Schordje (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes, 
chamberlainianum var. liemianum = Paph liemianum (as Guido would say "Full Stop")

separate issue
Paph chamberlainianum = Paph victoria-reginae

another separate issue:

growth characteristics and breeding characteristics says 
Paph primulinum and P. primulinum purpurescens are distinct from Paph liemianum, I'll box with anyone who collapses the two together. oke: 
They may be somewhat closely related, but they are distinct. Primulinum is a dwarf growing species compared to the rest. Paph liemianum grows large, and has long purple pigmented hairs along the leaf base edges, all other cochlopetalums including primulinum have much shorter hairs with no pigment on the leaf edges. Paph liemianum has normal color genes that breed in hybrids similar to the rest of the group. Paph primulinum and primulinum purpurescens have a color effect that emphasizes the yellow background, at the expense of overlaying colors. To my eye both forms of primulinum dilute color in hybrids, normal yellow form more so than purpurescens form. Though I don't know if the effect is due to supression of gene expression or if it is due to some other cause. The end result is that primulinum hybrids has less purple and brown and a stronger yellow background. No way are liemianum & primulinum the same species. 
(b.t.w. those of you who have compact growing liemianums, first bloom seedlings, you just need to keep growing them well. Each year they will get bigger, especially if you don't divide them. Eventually they will bulk up to the same size range as a medium size glaucophyllum. They are more compact than a well grown victoria-reginae or moquettianum).


----------



## Candace (Mar 22, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification. I just love all this name confusion. I guess I've got two Annabellchens after all. Now I have to remember to label the tags correctly.


----------



## slippertalker (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree that Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum are distinct from each other, but my understanding is that Paph primulinum grows closer to Paph liemianum than other members of the cochlepetalum group. Obviously all of this group have a close relationship......

Whether Paph primulinum is an isolated population derived from Paph liemianum would be an interesting question to delve into. I do believe that Paph primulinum itself is much more compact and tends to have smaller flowers than it's var. pupurascens which is a diluted flower that is intermediate between Paph primulinum and its cochlopetalum ancestor.

Paph primulinum is obviously albinistic, and as such doesn't show any color in the foliage. Paph primulinum v. purpurascens gives hybrids that are larger and colored different than Paph primulinum. 

The others in this group are all larger in growth habit and also their flowers are larger.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Mar 22, 2007)

Leo said it all......I see very few similarities between primulinum and liemianum...personally, I think liemianum may be the nicest of all the cochlopetalum species, if only for the foliage...Take care, Eric


----------



## NYEric (Mar 23, 2007)

Wouldn't all this be nice w/ photos to show the differences!


----------



## slippertalker (Mar 23, 2007)

I researched this further and found the documentation that I had remembered from years ago. This is from James H. Asher published in the Orchid Digest in Sept 1980. Here is the verbatim listing regarding primulinum:

"The chance seeding on outcrops of volcanic rock with a basic reaction, simulating limestone, produced an inbreeding colony of escaped racial stock of P. chamberlainianum subsp liemiana across the valley from its normal home on limestone. This colony underwent albinistic degenerative changes and anthocyanin production defects consequent to the limited amount of racial stock accidentally introduced there and tremendous inbreeding. Therefore, technically, this plant is an albinistically degerate form, lacking anthocyanin production ability, and was transferred to Paphiopedilum chamberlainianum subsp liemiana forma primulinum in Orchid Digest, vo. 37, pp.102-105, 1973, and two varieties were names, the one deficient in anthocyanins, var flavescens, and the one lacking in them entirely, var flavum"

Of course, since then, Paph primulinum was split from the above concept and they are referred to as Paph primulinum and Paph primulinum var purpurascens.

My understanding is that Fowlie and Asher actually visited these locations in northern Sumatra to understand the relationship between Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. Since Paph primulinum is an inbred aberrant form of its ancestor, it shouldn't be much of a surprise to see differences in flower and plant morphology. The relatively close geographical location certainly leads to suggestions of a close relationship.

More rebuttal?oke: 

I would like to hear if anyone has different information....


----------



## Candace (Mar 24, 2007)

I notice Matt Gore has some great photos of the plants mentioned, on his website.


----------



## Leo Schordje (Mar 31, 2007)

Not trying to create conflict, but the 1980 work by Asher was just the start of the modern scientific study involved in this group. Please read some of the works published after 2000. Try Koopowitz, or Braem, or even my least favorite, Cribb. All base their more modern conclusions on the ground work done by the likes of Fowlei and Asher. By the way, Asher by training was a mammalian developmental embryologist, not a taxonomist. Fowlie was a dentist, not a taxonomist. Both gentlemen were great observers, but neither were really taxonomists. Few of Fowlie's species descriptions have withstood the test of time. I do read his articles with great attention to his comments about habitat. His "Awash in the Bitter Sea" series in OD was fabulous. 
I personally can not weigh in deeper into this taxonomic debate, because I am not a taxonomist, and would simply end up merely quoting the above authors. Braem's last couple books pretty much say it all in my opinion. 
Leo


----------



## Roy (Apr 3, 2007)

Leo, you have again said all that needs to be said. So many arguments occur on orchids when " popular figures" in the orchid world promote their theories, with illustrations, in widely distributed publications and because of their notoriety, have many believing what they say is gospel and the actual 'expert' finds it difficult to get the correct message across. This where the 'true' name gets lost and false hybrids registered.
Thanks Leo.


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 3, 2007)

Roy said:


> Leo, you have again said all that needs to be said. So many arguments occur on orchids when " popular figures" in the orchid world promote their theories, with illustrations, in widely distributed publications and because of their notoriety, have many believing what they say is gospel and the actual 'expert' finds it difficult to get the correct message across. This where the 'true' name gets lost and false hybrids registered.
> Thanks Leo.



I agree with this 100%, but the problem is that the "experts" often have strong differences of opinion. Determining the "true" name or relationship is tenuous at best, just look at the differences between Cribb and Braem. Both have valid perspectives but different conclusions. The bottom line is that none of them are certain and the science changes over time. 

The reason I brought up the Asher argument was that 1) they visited the habitat, and 2) noticed the close proximity of Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. (across the valley on different strata). 

There certainly are morphological differences, and without being able to go back in time we will never know for sure. With the close relationship of Paph primulinum and its var. purpurascens, it seems evident that at some point there was an ancestor that wasn't albinistic. Whether it was Paph liemianum or not will probably never be answered for sure, but if it isn't then what is the ancestor?


----------



## Leo Schordje (Apr 3, 2007)

slippertalker said:


> I agree with this 100%, but the problem is that the "experts" often have strong differences of opinion. <snip>The bottom line is that none of [the "experts"] are certain and the science changes over time. <snip>


 If you had ever met Dr Braem or Dr Cribb you would never suggest that they felt any uncertainty in their conclusions. None At ALL Nada !!  These guys are adamant in their conclusions. Over the years, Dr. Braem has changed his mind on a few things, you should read his last book, the one that came out in 2004. Not his 1988 book. Braem changed his mind on a number of things between 1988 and 2004. These guys don't change their minds without reasons, so assume they put some serious research and thought into it. 

You original question is what to call your hybrid. The RHS accepts liemanianum for registration. When a registration is submitted as chamberlainianum var liemianum, the RHS considers it a synonym of liemianum. With this in mind - label your hybrid Paph Annabellchen. 



slippertalker said:


> <snip> The reason I brought up the Asher argument was that 1) they visited the habitat, and 2) noticed the close proximity of Paph liemianum and Paph primulinum. (across the valley on different strata). <snip>



Proximity does not mean synonymy. Foxes, coyote, and wolf can and are sympatric species, but do not hybridize in the wild. They will hybridize in captivity if no intra-specific partner is present. I am reasonably certain the pollinator studies for primulinum and liemianum have not been done, but I feel comfortable asserting that when they are done, they will show different pollinator insects or a spacial issolation mechanism. 



slippertalker said:


> <snip> There certainly are morphological differences, and without being able to go back in time we will never know for sure. With the close relationship of Paph primulinum and its var. purpurascens, it seems evident that at some point there was an ancestor that wasn't albinistic. Whether it was Paph liemianum or not will probably never be answered for sure, but if it isn't then what is the ancestor?



The ancestral form was not any of the current existing species. The ancestor of primulinum and liemianum was neither, both species represent the product of evolutionary advances over time. All existing species represent the culmination of evolution to current date. They are dynamic, not static. One is just as 'modern" as the other. 

Hope this all helps.
Leo


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 3, 2007)

Actually I have met Guido and discussed various subjects with him. You are right, he's very opinionated and especially with those who cross him. I haven't read his 2004 book, so I'm not familiar with his most recent changes.

The point I'm making is that even though they speak with certainty, relationships and science evolve and there is not certainty in the results. They are always subject to changing their opinions, often disagreeing with their prior ideas. The end result is they aren't always "right" even though we like to think so. They are more knowledgeable, generally, in expressing their opinions.

I didn't bring up the question about the hybrid, and it was previously answered as you stated.

I agree that proximity doesn't equal synonomy, but it can be one indicator of a close relationship. Proving it is a seperate issue. There are numerous cases of populations in paphiopedilum evolving due to endemic isolation. They can have common ancestors but evolve differently due to geology and inbreeding. For example, the entire cochlopetalum group has unifying characteristics that are unique from other groups. Does this speak to one common ancestor or parallel evolution?

Thanks for the dialogue....


----------



## Leo Schordje (Apr 4, 2007)

I enjoy the back and forth too, thanks


----------

