# Two new Phals



## SlipperFan (May 3, 2011)

From Peter at Big Leaf. First is speciosum -- which I've wanted for a looooonnng time!







This is Sogo Yellowtris -- so bright and cheery! (Sogo Gotris X Sogo Golden)


----------



## Shiva (May 3, 2011)

Is'nt the first one tetraspis? Beautiful all the same.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 3, 2011)

I hope Peter will weigh in, but my understanding is that what was called tetrapsis in this form is really speciosum.


----------



## Shiva (May 3, 2011)

OrchidWiz calls it speciosa var. tetraspis.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 3, 2011)

I never was good at Latin. Speciosa is correct:
http://www.phals.net/speciosa/index_e.html

Here is speciosa var. tetrapsis:
http://www.phals.net/tetraspis/index_e.html


----------



## Hera (May 3, 2011)

Very nice. Enviable purchases.


----------



## W. Beetus (May 3, 2011)

Beautiful. Speciosa is on my want list.


----------



## JeanLux (May 4, 2011)

Both are nice, but the first one is soo specios'um' (?) !!!! Jean


----------



## Fabrice (May 4, 2011)

The first one is a nice tetrapsis C1, not speciosa

speciosum (or speciosa) would be a particular specie like tetrapsis but with a completely red flower. 
Speciosa would have disappeared from nature.


----------



## biothanasis (May 4, 2011)

Very nice both :clap:


----------



## Erythrone (May 4, 2011)

Splendide!!!

Magnifique!!!


----------



## chrismende (May 4, 2011)

Both wonderful! I've been getting more and more interested in phals since I got more space with the greenhouse! I love both of these!


----------



## SlipperFan (May 4, 2011)

Fabrice said:


> The first one is a nice tetrapsis C1, not speciosa
> 
> speciosum (or speciosa) would be a particular specie like tetrapsis but with a completely red flower.
> Speciosa would have disappeared from nature.


There seems to be some disagreement on this. Please look at the variety of speciosa here:
http://www.phals.net/speciosa/index_e.html
http://zanaf.dyndns.biz/Phalaenopsis/Phal_speciosa_christiana.htm

and tetrapsis here:
http://www.phals.net/tetraspis/index_e.html
http://zanaf.dyndns.biz/Phalaenopsis/Phal_tetraspis.htm

I wish Eric Christenson were still here!


----------



## Fabrice (May 4, 2011)

Yes, I agree it's difficult to know... I think it was Christenson who said the speciosa was a complet red form in the nature. 

This form, with just some petals or sepals with red color, is for me a horticultural form names C1. Maybe the red form of tetrapsis (the true speciosa for me) is one of the parents...

But it's just my personnal opinion, not sure.

If someone have a picture of a flower like yours in the nature, I will change without porblem my opinion.:wink:


----------



## SlipperFan (May 4, 2011)

It's just that the red appears so randomly that I find it difficult to believe that trait is hybridized in from a solid red.

And the lips are quite different between the two.

But you certainly could be right. Who knows?!


----------



## Fabrice (May 5, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> It's just that the red appears so randomly that I find it difficult to believe that trait is hybridized in from a solid red.



Yes, you're right. It's probably not possible.



SlipperFan said:


> And the lips are quite different between the two.
> 
> But you certainly could be right. Who knows?!



Do you have pictures to see that please? Because I didn't really found particular differences.
But I'm interesting. And also, if Peter can give his opinion, it would be good.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (May 5, 2011)

Beautiful phals Dot. The photo of the Sogo is stunning.


----------



## bigleaf (May 6, 2011)

So the debate continues. When this plant was first made available - it came with a name Phal tetraspis 'C#1'. This cultivar was widely cloned and made available. Two of these plants 'C#1' were identified as Phal speciosa by taxonmoist Dr. Leslie Garay. See this topic on my forum dated back in 2008

http://www.phalaenopsis.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6060&hilit=speciosa+'C#1'+garay






Olaf weigh in on this discussion here of why he does not believe this is Phal speciosa
http://www.phalaenopsis.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9422&hilit=speciosa+'C#1'+garay

November 2010 - AOS awarded this plant to Mrs. Ralph (Jo) Levy
as Phal speciosa. Joy Levy's plants were identified by Dr. Garay before.

http://www.phalaenopsis.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9375

Phalaenopsis speciosa ‘Magnifico’ AM-CHM/AOS 

Photo courtesy of Charles G. Wilson, use with permission.






Anyone is welcome to read thru these and decide for yourself if you want to call it Phal speciosa or Phal tetraspis.

If you buy this plant 'C#1' from me and you want to call it Phal tetraspis, let me know and I will ship your plant with a tag that reads Phal tetraspis 'C#1'. If you cannot decide, then let me know too so I will ship this plant with two tags.


----------



## paphreek (May 6, 2011)

The speciosa is stunningly beautiful with the contrasting petal. Peter, have you used this species in breeding? and if so what type of results do you get?


----------



## SlipperFan (May 6, 2011)

Thanks, Peter! I think we must leave this as an unresolved issue!


----------



## ORG (May 8, 2011)

Thanks Peter,
that you showed the links. So it is not necessary to start the discussion again.
For me it is clear, that we have no true speciosa in culture. The base for my decision is the description and the sketch of the describer Reichenbach f, which is deposited in Vienna.

So you can decide if these plants are true:

Here is the true one





*Sketch of Reichenbach f. based on the type of Phal., speciosa*
Best greetings 

Olaf


----------



## SlipperFan (May 8, 2011)

So I have a question, Olaf. Is it possible that Reichenback sketched only one flower he saw that he thought was typical, not seeing others that were not typical?


----------



## Rick (May 8, 2011)

That random petal color trait is pretty crazy.

It must show up in other phal species to for it to be used in the harlequin line of breeding.

Some one was telling me that a similar trait was involved with the staminode (or lack there of) of Phrag exstaminodium. Which is why the fragment of staminode can be highly variable from flower to flower.


----------



## Rick (May 8, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> So I have a question, Olaf. Is it possible that Reichenback sketched only one flower he saw that he thought was typical, not seeing others that were not typical?



This reminds me of the debates about Paph wilhelm/gardnerii and superbians var curtsii.

I'm inclined to think that in the 1800's taxonomists where on heavy doses of hallucinogenicsoke:oke:

It's gotta be about the same as being a baseball umpire.


----------



## ORG (May 9, 2011)

Dear Dot,
Reichenbach has seen mor e than one flower, he has seen a whole plant.






I think also that he has seen more then one plant, but I could not find anything about in the literature. But you can notice in the following sketch from Reichenbach that he ha painted another clone.






Dear Rick, you wrote
'I'm inclined to think that in the 1800's taxonomists where on heavy doses of hallucinogenics'
I think more that some of the owner of plants were on the heavy doses of hall...., when they are looking for a name of their plants.
The descriptions and then names based on the analyze of the taxonomists. 

Some of the species were lost, like Paph. glanduliferum, Phal. gibbosa, Phal. speciosa and Phal. luteola. Sometimes owner of plants used later then the names of these lost species for their plants, also when these plants came from other regions or differed clearly from the described one.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## SlipperFan (May 9, 2011)

Thanks, Olaf. I can't help thinking, though, that at that time, when this species was first discovered, that there may have been stands of plants that were not either seen or noted, and that later some of these plants came into breeding programs, which produced the random coloration so typical of some of these today.

If not, do you have an explanation for how this random color pattern happened?


----------



## Pook (May 14, 2011)

Here's a link to another discussion on this topic.
Botanist is the late Eric Christensen. If he said it's tetraspis, then it is!


----------

