# Paph godefroyae fma. leucochilum OR Paph. leucochilum???



## poozcard (May 17, 2011)

I am wondering after reading some paper about the status of leuco which is now considered as Paph.godefroyae fma. leucochilum.

There is one study by Fowlie that stated it should be Paph.leucochilum species with the reason of differences between leuco and godefroyae.

some of those examples are
1. the color of the flower is in cream-yellow in leuco while it is white in godefroyae
2. the difference in shape of staminode

Moreover, the habitat distribution is isolated from each other, not at all overlapping. P.leuco are found only in west coast of Thai peninsular (Andaman sea, in Krabi and Phangna province) while P.godefroyae are found only in east coast. 

if i follow this guideline, i would say, the P.leuco should be considered as a species or subsp.
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=0bYs8F0Mb9gC&lpg=PR2-IA69&ots=5PApJACkGB&dq=taxonomy%20variety%20form%20subspecies%20difference&pg=PR2-IA69#v=onepage&q=taxonomy%20variety%20form%20subspecies%20difference&f=false


anyway, it is from my limited knowledge and would like everyone please help me in these 2 simple questions. 

1. What is the rules of use of species/infra sp. classification?
2. Should leucochilum be consider as separated species?

Thank you in advance.

:rollhappy:


----------



## Ernie (May 17, 2011)

Psssssht. The sound of a can of worms opening. I'll be brief for once.

1. It's subjective. 
2. You'll get opinions for and against.


----------



## etex (May 17, 2011)

Good questions- I have wondered about this myself.


----------



## valenzino (May 18, 2011)

This distinction is getting every year more difficult due to new colonies found with intermediate characteristics,and also throught breeding some doubt arised(as you shurely know in thailand there are hybrids sold as species....godes with inside bellatulum for example,that have been back crossed to godefroyae many times to "hide" the hybrid origin...).
The most important feature to describe the difference between Godefroyae and leucochilum is described in the name:leucochilum means "white lip" someway.So the real difference is that godefroyae have dots on pouch and leucochilum have no spots on the lip.
The problem is that there are some cases in wich two leucochilum plant crossed have produced an outcome with some spots on pouch.This can confirm that godef. and leucoc. are from same ancestral origin and so have to be considered one a variety or subspecies of the other.


----------



## Braem (May 18, 2011)

poozcard said:


> I am wondering after reading some paper about the status of leuco which is now considered as Paph.godefroyae fma. leucochilum.
> 
> There is one study by Fowlie that stated it should be Paph.leucochilum species with the reason of differences between leuco and godefroyae.
> 
> ...


1) as far as colour is concerned, there is now general agreement between taxonomists that colour "varieties" are to be regarded as "forma" ... that is as "forms".
2) the shape of the staminodal shield in ALL plants of the subgenus Brachypetalum is rather variable ... thus, that is no reason to consider "leucochilum" a different species either.
3) the problem with differences in progeny when using thes plants in hybridization is known ... but that is normal ... thus that is not a good marker either.


----------



## Braem (May 18, 2011)

Ernie said:


> Psssssht. The sound of a can of worms opening. I'll be brief for once.
> 
> 1. It's subjective.
> 2. You'll get opinions for and against.


Right! ... and that will always be so as there will never be agreement on how to define anything at any taxonomic level. 
But because it is a can of worms does not mean that it is not worth discussing.


----------



## poozcard (May 18, 2011)

Thank you all for answering.
I really appreciate that.

I can confirm what valenzino mentioned that it is a mess in Thai breeding that they are hiding by backcrossing which make things harder.

but, What about other question that what is the criteria for classification of species or lower level?

I have been searching many books but could not find any clear answer yet.


----------



## Pete (May 20, 2011)

theyre all godefroyaes. some just have a completely clean pouch, others are creamier while some are whiter. if you have plants originating from these documented different sources and they exhibit "appropriate" characteristics worthy of calling them a forma leucochilum, then do it. im agree with pretty much all that valenzino and braem said


----------



## Rick (May 20, 2011)

valenzino said:


> This distinction is getting every year more difficult due to new colonies found with intermediate characteristics,and also throught breeding some doubt arised(as you shurely know in thailand there are hybrids sold as species....godes with inside bellatulum for example,that have been back crossed to godefroyae many times to "hide" the hybrid origin...).
> The most important feature to describe the difference between Godefroyae and leucochilum is described in the name:leucochilum means "white lip" someway.So the real difference is that godefroyae have dots on pouch and leucochilum have no spots on the lip.
> The problem is that there are some cases in wich two leucochilum plant crossed have produced an outcome with some spots on pouch.This can confirm that godef. and leucoc. are from same ancestral origin and so have to be considered one a variety or subspecies of the other.




I think another way to look at this is that there are 3 major types of brachypetalum Concolor, belatulum, and niveum. And everything else is in the smear between belatulum at the northern extreame and niveum in the southern end of brachy range. I think the polinator ecology of this group would be intensly interesting to see how this relatively widespread (geographically) group of similar flower forms is diverging or converging into these populations of subtle differences.


----------



## Heather (May 20, 2011)

Interesting. I always get the two mixed up so I appreciate the latin translation of leucochilum. That will help me remember!


----------



## Braem (May 21, 2011)

Heather said:


> Interesting. I always get the two mixed up so I appreciate the latin translation of leucochilum. That will help me remember!


Yes .. it is actually very simple ... if there is any spot on the pouch it simply is not a "leucochilum". Just like the many "alba" forms that are floating through literature ... if the flower is not white it is not "alba".


----------



## poozcard (May 21, 2011)

could anyone advise me which paper that i can find the 'general criteria' for species classification?


----------



## poozcard (May 21, 2011)

Braem said:


> Yes .. it is actually very simple ... if there is any spot on the pouch it simply is not a "leucochilum". Just like the many "alba" forms that are floating through literature ... if the flower is not white it is not "alba".



oh, this is very clear. it is nothing to do with where the plant was found right?

:clap::clap::clap:

thank you.


----------



## Braem (May 21, 2011)

poozcard said:


> could anyone advise me which paper that i can find the 'general criteria' for species classification?


There is NONE


----------



## Braem (May 21, 2011)

poozcard said:


> oh, this is very clear. it is nothing to do with where the plant was found right?
> 
> :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> thank you.


Of course not. However, there is a serious taxonomic problem: If a plant is officially described (following the rules of taxonomy) as var. alba, or forma alba, or soecies alba, or whatever, the name has to be kept, even if the flower is not white. I know this is pretty stupid ... but that is what the rules say (assuming of course, that the publication was is valid and effective.)


----------



## poozcard (May 21, 2011)

May I ask you a little more on this. Hope it will not be annoying.

If there is no general criteria, is there any hint that what matters for sp clarification?
Period of blooming? or Natural pollenator? or Physical characteristic of major sexual organs such as hair in pouch or staminode?

It is just my feeling that it should be some key item for taxonomist ussually use to identify sp.

Thank you again.


----------



## Roth (May 22, 2011)

From flasks, call them 'cute hybrids'


----------



## Braem (May 22, 2011)

poozcard said:


> May I ask you a little more on this. Hope it will not be annoying.
> 
> If there is no general criteria, is there any hint that what matters for sp clarification?
> Period of blooming? or Natural pollenator? or Physical characteristic of major sexual organs such as hair in pouch or staminode?
> ...


Of course you may ask. The problem is that we follow a set of rules called "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature". That set of rules gives us a way to "standardize" descriptions and naming but does not (and never will .. but about that later) give any guidelines of what is to be considered a "biological" criterion fit to be used to deliniate any entity at any taxonomic level. A famous biologist (It think it way Mayr .. if I remember correctly) once said " a species within the plant world is that what a competent botanist describes as such."
Thus there are NO rules except "common sense" (whatever that may be) for deciding : species, subspecies, variety, form ... and if someone considers leucochilum a good autonomous species (I do not) then one must simply ask : is that common sense .... and to consider a species on the colour of a pouch ALONE is (in my view) not very common sence. For example, Masdevallia coccinea comes in red, yellow and white ... so if one would consider flower colour to be a good marker at the species level in orchid taxonomy, we would have to describe all three colour forms as different species.

Now comes the tricky point of my posting (and I will be scolded and flamed for it): the other problem of taxonomy is that ANYONE can publicize ANYTHING as long as he/she finds a journal to do so ... Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Peer Review .. it simply has to do with "professional training" ... (And this is not saying that we botanist do not make mistakes).
But would you have your appendix taken out by a baker? a lawyer? an architect?

Period of blooming: that differs geographically ... 
Pollinator: there may be several ... and that would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
hair on the pouch or some organ ... that varies
staminodal shield ... is a good marker within SOME groups

But then again, how much "different" is "enough" and how many criteria must be given ....

The species definition in animals is simple and straight forward (when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, it is a good species) , but in plants there is no definition that works .....


----------



## poozcard (May 22, 2011)

Your answer is very impressive.
I feel like I am opening a door to new world 

I am a civil engineer who believe that it should be some hint of nature that we can derive a numerical formula for designing structure.
That is why it is difficult to me at the beginning, to accept the fact that you explained.
But now, it is clear that there is no definition that works at the moment, so bad 

To understand how nature works is not easy at all.
Thank you for your kind explanation.


----------



## Braem (May 22, 2011)

poozcard said:


> Your answer is very impressive.
> I feel like I am opening a door to new world
> 
> I am a civil engineer who believe that it should be some hint of nature that we can derive a numerical formula for designing structure.
> ...


anytime ... and the fact that nature does not work along "schedules" make it interesting. Humans always think that they are the ones that must understand and must control everything. But we humans are part of Nature, not the other way around.


----------



## Rick (May 22, 2011)

Braem said:


> Of course you may ask. The problem is that we follow a set of rules called "International Code of Botanical Nomenclature". That set of rules gives us a way to "standardize" descriptions and naming but does not (and never will .. but about that later) give any guidelines of what is to be considered a "biological" criterion fit to be used to deliniate any entity at any taxonomic level. A famous biologist (It think it way Mayr .. if I remember correctly) once said " a species within the plant world is that what a competent botanist describes as such."
> Thus there are NO rules except "common sense" (whatever that may be) for deciding : species, subspecies, variety, form ... and if someone considers leucochilum a good autonomous species (I do not) then one must simply ask : is that common sense .... and to consider a species on the colour of a pouch ALONE is (in my view) not very common sence. For example, Masdevallia coccinea comes in red, yellow and white ... so if one would consider flower colour to be a good marker at the species level in orchid taxonomy, we would have to describe all three colour forms as different species.
> 
> Now comes the tricky point of my posting (and I will be scolded and flamed for it): the other problem of taxonomy is that ANYONE can publicize ANYTHING as long as he/she finds a journal to do so ... Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Peer Review .. it simply has to do with "professional training" ... (And this is not saying that we botanist do not make mistakes).
> ...



I'm glad you brought this these ideas up Dr. Braem as they reinforce topics I've brought up in several other identification threads.

I would agree that pollinator studies are difficult (and very expensive to conduct in foreign countries), but they are not impossible.

And yes you can have more than 1 pollinator. I have a very good paper by Hans Banziger (2005) that identified the pollinators of Cyp. guttatum, and how these same pollinators could not pollinate C. flavum and C. yunannanense even though they would enter the flowers of these sympatric species.

Whether by pollinator study or metrics based, the question of "how much or many" still ends up in the forefront, and keeps pushing for a statistical solution. I know that some taxonomists have tried cranking ANOVA based statistics on large data bases of either structural or genetic metrics to look for "statistically significant" differences between species.

I work in environmental toxicology and live with similar debates every day as to how big an effect is a "real" effect or impact. You end up with a lot of different answers (often depending on who puts the most $$ in the argument). But there is a general convergence on a 20%-25% percent effect as being a "biologically real" effect.

This works for things that can be measured but how can you quantify a metric like color?


----------



## poozcard (May 22, 2011)

Hi Rick,

for color, I think with the present technology we can already measure it as the digital camera can compute the white balance.
We can use a camera taking picture of the flower then we know each single pixel contains how much red, green and blue.

Thanks for sharing.

:wink::wink::wink:


----------



## SlipperFan (May 22, 2011)

Unfortunately, white balance is not perfect, and differs somewhat with different cameras.


----------



## poozcard (May 22, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Unfortunately, white balance is not perfect, and differs somewhat with different cameras.



sure it differs
then we may have to use the specific calibrated one

:clap::clap:


----------



## Rick (May 22, 2011)

Chasing after metrics still generally defies the concept of a species which is a self sustaining population of genetically similar organisms which are genetically isolated from other populations. There are other ways to paraphrase this concept that usually says something along the lines of a species is a genetically isolated population of organisms that cannot interbreed with other species (recently modified to "naturally occurring populations" since intergeneric crosses are viable in artificial culture).

This is why I bring up the use of pollination studies as a tool for separating species into successful breeding populations of organisms. If an orchid cannot maintain genetic integrity in natural sexual reproduction, then it cannot maintain a species status (let the bugs decide!!).

Granted it can be very expensive, time consuming, and, in some countries, very dangerous to conduct this type of study. Certainly, in comparison to taking a flower apart in a lab. There is still a good correlation to flower morphometrics and a species concept, but unlike days gone by it needs to be done on a statistical representation of an entire population of the species and not just the one or two great flowers that caught someones attention in the field. 

As an engineer you came up with a great solution to quantify color, but how would you handle albino, melanistic, leucistic,.......color forms of the same species? How many more metrics do you add to get enough dimensions to get a true genetic separation. And then there are spatial and temporal aspects of organisms in the wild that contribute to their ability to remain genetically distinct. Those are metrics that still require reliable field data.

One of the newest twists I recently read was that some very similar looking bulbophylums emit different odors to attract a different set of pollinators. Now you have an olfactory dimension to add to the ANOVA!

The switch to DNA may be the most promising lab method to settle species concepts, but there are just as many arguments over what genes to target, and the original problem with standard metrics, how much difference is a significant difference?

So going full circle, the bugs and plants are smarter than we are, so ask the bugs what they think?


----------



## Braem (May 23, 2011)

poozcard said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> for color, I think with the present technology we can already measure it as the digital camera can compute the white balance.
> We can use a camera taking picture of the flower then we know each single pixel contains how much red, green and blue.
> ...


But that is not the point. The point is that flower colour is variable in species and therefore flower cannot be used to deliniate any taxonomic level.


----------



## Braem (May 23, 2011)

Rick said:


> Chasing after metrics still generally defies the concept of a species which is a self sustaining population of genetically similar organisms which are genetically isolated from other populations. There are other ways to paraphrase this concept that usually says something along the lines of a species is a genetically isolated population of organisms that cannot interbreed with other species (recently modified to "naturally occurring populations" since intergeneric crosses are viable in artificial culture).
> 
> This is why I bring up the use of pollination studies as a tool for separating species into successful breeding populations of organisms. If an orchid cannot maintain genetic integrity in natural sexual reproduction, then it cannot maintain a species status (let the bugs decide!!).
> 
> ...


The DNA issue is amusing ... DNA testing is to be done in a lab ... therefore field work is no longer possible ... and DNA fingerprinting is not usefull at the species level or thereunder. (And please don't start comparing with animals and humans).


----------



## Ricky (May 23, 2011)

Braem said:


> ... the other problem of taxonomy is that ANYONE can publicize ANYTHING as long as he/she finds a journal to do so ...



:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh, you speak from my heart! I hate to see this inflation of vars and formas, especially at the Phalaenopsis section. Seems that each taxonomist feel compelled to describe as many new (sub)species as possible.


----------



## Braem (May 23, 2011)

Ricky said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Oh, you speak from my heart! I hate to see this inflation of vars and formas, especially at the Phalaenopsis section. Seems that each taxonomist feel compelled to describe as many new (sub)species as possible.


If you go by the DNA analysis, you can describe anything as anything ... The method works at higher level but not at the species level or below .... And if the day comes that I need a lab to difefrentiate between a Paph and a Phrag, or when I start considereing Cattleya to be Sophronitis, I will stop doing botany.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 23, 2011)

Braem said:


> If you go by the DNA analysis, you can describe anything as anything ... The method works at higher level but not at the species level or below .... And if the day comes that I need a lab to difefrentiate between a Paph and a Phrag, or when I start considereing Cattleya to be Sophronitis, I will stop doing botany.



Hear! Hear!


----------



## Rick (May 24, 2011)

Braem said:


> The DNA issue is amusing ... DNA testing is to be done in a lab ... therefore field work is no longer possible ... and DNA fingerprinting is not usefull at the species level or thereunder. (And please don't start comparing with animals and humans).



Whether you take apart a flower under a disecting scope and measure/photograph the parts, or take apart the flower DNAmolecules the importance of field work and lab work is the same.

Unfortunately I see too many taxonomic studies both DNA and metrics based that are inadequately supported by field population data.

How many plants are named from single specimens collected in the 1800-early 1900's that have fraudulent local data? 

There is still controversy over the name of a slipper from New Guinea that was named from a picture of a drawing of a single flower observed in the late
1800's. Can we scrap that one and do some real science?


----------



## Brian Monk (May 24, 2011)

Using DNA analysis alone to describe populations at the species level is the most irritating thing to me in all of botany. New methods are not necessarily better methods, and the poor contextualization of most DNA analyses leaves more qestions than answers. Data is data, and must be considered in the light of ALL of the other data. DNA is useful, bt no more so than basing Paph groups on leaf color and mottling (remember delenatii, the brachypetalum?).


----------



## Braem (May 24, 2011)

Rick said:


> Whether you take apart a flower under a disecting scope and measure/photograph the parts, or take apart the flower DNAmolecules the importance of field work and lab work is the same.
> 
> Unfortunately I see too many taxonomic studies both DNA and metrics based that are inadequately supported by field population data.
> 
> ...


No we can't ... because the rules of taxonomy do not allow us to do that. Once a plant has been validly and effectivel described according to the rules, it remains as described for all eternity ... The drawing by the way showed the entire plant (it is by Blume) ...it is Paph. glanduliferum ... 
The problem here is that the drawing even shows details of the staminodal shield ... but no plant has ever been found again with that kind of staminodal shield .... 

There is another problem like that floating around .. Paph. elliottianum ...
It is all explained (at length) in my books.

And yes we need field work, not lab work. I have shown in several publications (and others did so also) that the DNA work at the species level (fr example by Cox et al for Paphiopedilum) is nonsense. ... But as long as zillions of Euros and Dollars are given to thoese "scientists" ... what can we do?


----------



## Braem (May 24, 2011)

Brian Monk said:


> Using DNA analysis alone to describe populations at the species level is the most irritating thing to me in all of botany. New methods are not necessarily better methods, and the poor contextualization of most DNA analyses leaves more qestions than answers. Data is data, and must be considered in the light of ALL of the other data. DNA is useful, bt no more so than basing Paph groups on leaf color and mottling (remember delenatii, the brachypetalum?).


YES!!!!!


----------



## poozcard (May 24, 2011)

It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.


----------



## Braem (May 24, 2011)

poozcard said:


> It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.


I fully agree ...


----------



## Marc (May 24, 2011)

poozcard said:


> It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.



Nice analogy


----------



## Brian Monk (May 24, 2011)

poozcard said:


> It seems like having DNA technique without understanding sample/population is just like a monkey holding GPS. Monkey has no idea where GPS leads him to.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rollhappy:


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

Good morning everyone,

My friend in Krabi asked me to share this.
The pictures are taken by my friend Khun A. 
He did a homemade research and would like me to share.

The intention is just to share how P.godefroyae from west coast and adjacent island of Krabi to Phangna looks. (only from his collection )

The weak is My friend and I have limited no. of east coast godefroyae.

What he has found are..
1. There are differences in pouch
2. There are some common in having hair at upper edge of staminode.

I am not sure it is proper or not to post here, but I have verbal permit from him.
If it is inappropriate please advise, I will quickly delete them.

This is his growing space. Most of them are exul/godefroyae(West coast)/Niveum/Thaianum.







After 2 weeks of reading this topic, I know this might not be a relevant evidence for classification but it is something general that you may also found after seen a lot of flowers for a while.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

1st specimen is from Koh Kai (an island on east coast, Andaman sea)

Most of plant from this island has yellow to cream color.
White color is rare to find.






At the upper edge of staminode, there is covered by hairs.
the shape is more widen horizontally.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

2 is also from Koh Kai







and its hairy staminode


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

3 is from Koh Hong (an island on east coast)






Shape and hair is similar to 1,2


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

4 is from Au Pranang or Au Nang.
Au Nang is on mainland Krabi not far from sea shore.






Hairy heart shape staminode.


----------



## paphioboy (May 25, 2011)

I just saw your album on facebook... Amazing variation!  Thanks for sharing..


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

5. is from Koh Yoong.

Koh Yoong is near Koh PeePee, quite far from mainland.
Only Paph there is P.godefroyae, not any P.exul nor P.niveum.

P.godefroyae from this island has less spotted under leaves.
Some are found totally green, looks like albino.
But the flowers are still having texture.

Spikes, ovary are also bright green too.






Staminode looks similar as above.






If there is no flower, you never no the plant will be album or not


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

6. is from Koh Panak (1)

Most of plant from this island has white flower with red texture.
Spotted pouch is often found there.











Again, staminode is covered with hair.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

7. is also from Koh Panak (2), east coast, facing Andaman sea.

The red spotted/texture spreads over the pouch.
But it is lined not scatter as found in P.bellatulum.







Pubescent staminode


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

8. is also from Koh Panak (3)

This one has more yellowish flower and 'leucochilum' forma. 






Hairs are still at the edge of staminode.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

9. is also from Koh Panak (4)

This is fma.leucochilum with white flower.






Staminode with hairs on the upper rim.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

10. this plant is found in main land of Krabi, in the area call 'Nai Chong'
Yellowish flower has scatterred spots on the pouch.






Staminode is more rounded when compared to others above.
Anyhow, the staminode is still covered by hairs.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

11. This is the one from 'Chumporn' which suspected to be the same population was describe by Godefroy-Lebouf those days.

Chumporn province is located on east coast of souther Thailand, facing the gulf of Thailand.

The flower is relatively smaller than which are from Andaman side.
All flowers are in white color.
Spotted pouch are usually found.






Shape of staminode is vertical eclipse with elevated flanges.
This particular specimen has no hair.


----------



## poozcard (May 25, 2011)

That is all I have now.
My friend and I have limited number of 'east coast' plant.
But those ones we found from orchid shows have the same characteristic.

Please find below the staminode beauty contest


----------



## JeanLux (May 25, 2011)

Very impressive blooms, and interesting stamis!!!! Thanks for sharing those!!! Jean


----------



## valenzino (May 25, 2011)

Really thanks for shearing,is an extremely interesting thread.Will like to visit those places someday.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 25, 2011)

I agree with Jean! Very impressive. As for the contest...the round one wins for me!


----------



## Braem (May 25, 2011)

poozcard said:


> 11. This is the one from 'Chumporn' which suspected to be the same population was describe by Godefroy-Lebouf those days.
> 
> Chumporn province is located on east coast of souther Thailand, facing the gulf of Thailand.
> 
> ...


This is not leucochilum


----------



## Braem (May 25, 2011)

poozcard said:


> 4 is from Au Pranang or Au Nang.
> Au Nang is on mainland Krabi not far from sea shore.
> 
> 
> ...


not leucochilum


----------



## fibre (May 25, 2011)

Braem said:


> not leucochilum



not _Paphiopedilum godefroyae forma leucochilum_, but _P. godefroyae_ as all the others, isn't it?


----------



## fibre (May 25, 2011)

Montri, I thank you very very much for sharing your photographs with all these interesting variations! So impressiv! I wished to have such nice variation of some species in my collection as well!


----------



## Braem (May 26, 2011)

fibre said:


> not _Paphiopedilum godefroyae forma leucochilum_, but _P. godefroyae_ as all the others, isn't it?


Yes, but I thought this was about leucochilum ...????


----------



## callosum (May 31, 2011)

do the staminode characteristic of paph can classified the brachy


----------



## Braem (May 31, 2011)

NO ... staminodes of all brachys (but especially bellatulum and concolor) are extremely variable.


----------



## Denverpaphman (Sep 23, 2013)

Woahhh
Has anyone figured out what this is yet? For some reasons the pictures on this post wont load when I'm on the slippertalk site, but do when I'm googling paphs...

I would love to learn more about this little plant. Thanks!


----------



## Leo Schordje (Sep 26, 2013)

This is nearly a three year old thread. But, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no definitive solution. Since we are horticulturists, not taxonomists, use leucohilum when you see a plant in flower with no spots on the pouch. Personally I subscribe to using godefroyae forma leucochilum. But you can use either and most will know what you are talking about. I tend to follow Dr. Braem's lead on taxonomy. He seem's to really know what he is talking about and we like the same types of beer! Though neither of us drinks much any more. Its been a month or more since my last beer. Maybe next month I'll have another.


----------



## Ozpaph (Sep 26, 2013)

Leo, why hold back? You know you want one! (if you have an aclohol problem please ignore my encoragement and go back to AA.............joking...)


----------



## Leo Schordje (Sep 27, 2013)

No problem, just age, and I found that as I got older, I became mildly allergic to the yeasts and grain in beer, so while I still love the taste and feel of good beer, I get headaches from it, so I found if I just have one or two, I avoid the headache. Distilled spirits, especially when aged 10 or more years in oak seem to avoid this problem. Love my Bourbon. Lately have been enjoying Evan Williams Single Barrel, aged 10 years. My all time favorite was the 2011 release of George T. Stagg, 15 year old bourbon, cask strength. The smoothest bourbon I ever had. I'm sure there are others as good, I just haven't sampled them yet. 

Most of my life I subscribed to the old phrase "Excess in all things, moderation is for Monks". My philosophy hasn't changed from that except to include "avoid headaches".


----------



## tomkalina (Sep 27, 2013)

Leo,

I'd advise you to take up golf! I also lost my taste for beer until I started playing. After drinking beer and playing golf for a while, I found that I stopped drinking beer again and started drinking martinis. Go figure!!!


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 27, 2013)

I agree...beer can give me a headache if I drink more than 2. But I find bourbon, which I like, to give me a really bad headache if I have more than 1 stiff drink. That's why I prefer gin, wine and vodka...never a headache, not even from red wine.


----------

