# Paph. violascens versus bougainvilleanum



## Drorchid (Oct 14, 2008)

Both species were in bloom at the moment, so I though I would take some comparison shots. They are both related; some even consider them the same species. Paph. bougainvilleanum is native to the island of Bougainville. Paph. violascens is native to the island of New Guinea and adjacent offshore islands. To me the biggest difference is the foliage. Paph. violascens has more of a checker board mottled type foliage. Also the flowers tend to be darker in color.

The plants side by side:







Flowers side by side:






Close up of Paph. bougainvilleanum:






side view of Paph. bougainvilleanum:






Close up of Paph. violascens:






side view of Paph. violascens:






Robert


----------



## NYEric (Oct 14, 2008)

Is it just me, or do they not look alike at all!?


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 14, 2008)

I do see some resemblance, and I can tell that they are related, but I agree the differences are big enough that I would call them 2 different species.

Robert


----------



## NYEric (Oct 14, 2008)

Mos' def!


----------



## likespaphs (Oct 14, 2008)

thanks for the groovy info and pictures!


----------



## JeanLux (Oct 14, 2008)

they look like two rather different cousins with similar staminodes!!! Thanks for those great comparative shots!!! Jean


----------



## Paul (Oct 14, 2008)

wow!! very nice species!!


----------



## @[email protected] (Oct 14, 2008)

Thank you for the photos of these nice flowers. The foliage of you’re violascens is not as dark as those I have seen. Anyway, it’s a true violascens.
Bravo


----------



## goldenrose (Oct 14, 2008)

JeanLux said:


> they look like two rather different cousins with similar staminodes!!! Thanks for those great comparative shots!!! Jean


I'm with you Jean! The stams are interesting & so similar! Nice comparison, Thanks Robert!


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Oct 14, 2008)

Great comparison photos!


----------



## paphjoint (Oct 14, 2008)

Great flowers !! - don't see many of them !!


----------



## SlipperKing (Oct 14, 2008)

I recently got a baby Paph. violascens from from you all (OL) I hope I can get it big enough to bloom too! Nice looking flowers Robert


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 14, 2008)

Interesting how similar the staminodes are, and perhaps the dorsal sepals. But just about everything else is different.


----------



## Greenpaph (Oct 14, 2008)

Excellent photos!

thanks


----------



## smartie2000 (Oct 15, 2008)

Thanks for the comparison.
I think they hae the neatest green pouches


----------



## paphioboy (Oct 15, 2008)

Interesting... Makes me wanna get both of them (although I personally prefer violascens...)  BTW, is papuanum considered a separate species..?


----------



## ORG (Oct 15, 2008)

Dear Paphioboy,
Paph. papuanum is clearly different to both

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## biothanasis (Oct 15, 2008)

Thanks Robert!!! WOnderful both, but Paph. violascens is out of this world


----------



## ORG (Oct 15, 2008)

I had forgotten to show also the variety of _Paph. bougainvilleanum_ from the island Malaite with the bigger flower in another colour






left _Paph. bougainvilleanum_ - right _Paph. bougainvilleanum _var. _saskianum_

And here the stamode of the var. _saskianum_






Best greetings 

Olaf


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 15, 2008)

Olaf,

Thanks for showing that variety, it looks like there is a dark stripe through the petals, or is that just the photo?

Robert


----------



## ORG (Oct 15, 2008)

Dear Robert,
there is a darker brownish stripe in the petals in all clones which I have seen

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Bolero (Oct 15, 2008)

A slight resemblance for me but really are different flowers.

I love the photos, great to see comparisons.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 15, 2008)

During the 80's, a lot of violescens were being imported as papuanum...I got one of those from Richard Topper, along with a properly labeled violescens. At the time, what was properly considered to be papuanum was labelled as 'zieckianum"...not that it mattered, as they were not being imported anyway. Take care, Eric


----------



## ORG (Oct 15, 2008)

Here in Europe was the same. Paph. violascens was in culture as Paph. papuanum and also some hybrids were registred with the parent papuanum, also when the crosses were made with violascens.
We have known zieckianum only from the literature but no plants were in culture.

But nowerdays the true papuanum is in culture and also some of them labeled as zeckianum, but no true zieckianum.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 16, 2008)

We used to have a plant labeled Paph. zieckianum here in the greenhouse, but I think it was short lived. I think it was a hard to grow species in cultivation. I found an old photo of it, Olaf can you confirm that this was the true zieckianum, or is this papuanum?:







Robert


----------



## ORG (Oct 16, 2008)

Dear Robert,
on the base of the picture I would say that it is zieckianum.
But I am not sure if it would be better classiffied as a variety of papuanum.

Have you perhaps also a picture of the whole plant or from side.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Drorchid (Oct 16, 2008)

Olaf,

unfortunately this is the only picture we have of it, and I think the plant is dead now.

Robert


----------



## @[email protected] (Oct 16, 2008)

This species seems to be very hard to grow compared with violascens or papuanum
An example of a leave of zk but maybe olaf can confirm it's looks like a true zk !!
http://cjoint.com/data/kqtcPgQWe8_z.JPG


----------



## ORG (Oct 16, 2008)

It could be, but let us wait for the flower.

Olaf


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 16, 2008)

I had always heard that zieckianum was synonymous with papuanum...Eric


----------



## ORG (Oct 17, 2008)

Dear Eric,
the problem was always that no plants were in culture and so our knowledge based only on the original description and a bad picture.











The same problem was over a long time with the Paph. papuanum and the mixing with violascens. Nowerdays we know a little bit more about these both species and the differences between are clear.
Let us hope that we will get in the future more information about these species and also about the variability that we can come to a final decision about the status.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 17, 2008)

That zieckianum picture was the one I had seen...it was in Bennett's paph book...papuanum had no picture. Later, when the papuanum's finally turned up in photos, they looked pretty similar...so and I had read in some places that they were conspecific. Thanks olaf! Take care, Eric


----------



## truemadman (Oct 17, 2008)

Drorchid said:


> We used to have a plant labeled Paph. zieckianum here in the greenhouse, but I think it was short lived. I think it was a hard to grow species in cultivation. I found an old photo of it, Olaf can you confirm that this was the true zieckianum, or is this papuanum?:
> 
> Robert



This looks similar to paph wentworthianum, posted in

http://www.orchidspecies.com/paphwentworthianum.htm

Don't you think?

Truemadman


----------



## ORG (Oct 18, 2008)

_Paph. papuanum_ and _wentworthianum _are near related. So wentworthianum was seen also sometimes as a local variety of _papuanum_.
You can see in the following picture both species together. The upper is _Paph. papuanum_, the lower _Paph. wentworthianum._






Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 18, 2008)

I see what you mean, Olaf.


----------



## callosum (Jan 25, 2010)

interested spicies


----------



## wonderlen3000 (Jan 25, 2010)

Thanks.


----------



## Pete (Jan 26, 2010)

great photos. thank you all for posting. these are some of my absolute favorites


----------

