# sulphurinum, album or immaculatum



## quietaustralian (Jul 11, 2011)

I posted the thread below some time ago but I'm still unsure about how to describe these plants. 

Dr Braem described the true white form as album, these blooms aren't yellow enough to be sulphurinum and it seems immaculatum isn't valid.

I quite like immaculatum but what I like and whats correct in taxonomy are two different things.

Any further suggestions?

www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19250

Regards, Mick


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 11, 2011)

??? alba?? or is that just a derivative of album with the same meaning


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 11, 2011)

all i know is that i want it
dang...


----------



## Ernie (Jul 11, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> ??? alba?? or is that just a derivative of album with the same meaning



No, album vs alba is a gender thing. Many of you that speak the romance languages (italian, spanish, french, etc) probably know better than us gringos. I'm not sure of the particulars (masc, fem, neut), but PaphiopedilUM are albUM, sulphurinUM, albinUM, coloratUM, flavUM, etc (as validly described) . CattleyA are albA etc.


----------



## John M (Jul 11, 2011)

Ernie said:


> No, album vs alba is a gender thing. Many of you that speak the romance languages (italian, spanish, french, etc) probably know better than us gringos. I'm not sure of the particulars (masc, fem, neut), but PaphiopedilUM are albUM, sulphurinUM, albinUM, coloratUM, flavUM, etc (as validly described) . CattleyA are albA etc.




Ahhhhhh.......'learned something new today! Thanks Ernie!:clap:


----------



## Braem (Jul 11, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> ??? alba?? or is that just a derivative of album with the same meaning


alba is just the female form of album


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 11, 2011)

Thank-you both.
So, what is the correct descriptor for a non-white flower, without red pigmentation? Or is it simply a colour variant he can add a nice varietal name to?

Whatever it's a very pretty flower!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 11, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Thank-you both.
> So, what is the correct descriptor for a non-white flower, without red pigmentation? Or is it simply a colour variant he can add a nice varietal name to?
> 
> Whatever it's a very pretty flower!



Not to be a smart ass, but it is called whatever the form is validly described as. 

I'm not entirely sure in this case- Dr. Braem or Olaf Gruss might be able to put the right name on it. 

I believe last time i looked it up, the correct name for an albino concolor was Paph. concolor forma sulphurinum regardless of its "yellowness"???


----------



## goldenrose (Jul 14, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> all i know is that i want it
> dang...


:drool::drool::drool:


----------



## Braem (Jul 15, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Thank-you both.
> So, what is the correct descriptor for a non-white flower, without red pigmentation? Or is it simply a colour variant he can add a nice varietal name to?
> 
> Whatever it's a very pretty flower!


OK ... that depends on what colour the flower is ... but here are some ideas:

a) alba resp. album means white, and in my opinion should only be used for plants with PURE WHITE flowers
b) sulphurinum ... is yellow ... and if you take it correctly, should only be used for sulphur-yellow flowers
c) flavum ... is also yellow
d) immamculatum ... is generally used for flowers without spots 
etc. etc.
plants with non-white flowers but no red pigments could be called anything but not "album"


----------



## Ozpaph (Jul 15, 2011)

Braem said:


> OK ... that depends on what colour the flower is ... but here are some ideas:
> 
> a) alba resp. album means white, and in my opinion should only be used for plants with PURE WHITE flowers
> b) sulphurinum ... is yellow ... and if you take it correctly, should only be used for sulphur-yellow flowers
> ...



Thank-you. Appreciate your knowledge.

There was a trend in cymbidium breeding a few years ago to call all flowers without red pigment (ie clear yellow, clear green, pure white or white with yellow lip) "pure colour". I guess this was an advertising 'gimmick' rather than a botanically correct descriptor.
So, the creamy-yellow paph. concolor flower could be 'flavum' var. 'Yellow Moon' - or whatever varietal Howzat picks?


----------



## Braem (Jul 15, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Thank-you. Appreciate your knowledge.
> 
> There was a trend in cymbidium breeding a few years ago to call all flowers without red pigment (ie clear yellow, clear green, pure white or white with yellow lip) "pure colour". I guess this was an advertising 'gimmick' rather than a botanically correct descriptor.
> So, the creamy-yellow paph. concolor flower could be 'flavum' var. 'Yellow Moon' - or whatever varietal Howzat picks?


There are so many variations of each color, and honestly, not every plant that is different by one or two spots should get a varietal name. However, if you are not sure about the color and how to name it in Latin, ask me or give it the name of one of your friends .... and I will tell you how to latinize his/her name.


----------



## quietaustralian (Jul 16, 2011)

Braem said:


> OK ... that depends on what colour the flower is ... but here are some ideas:
> 
> a) alba resp. album means white, and in my opinion should only be used for plants with PURE WHITE flowers
> b) sulphurinum ... is yellow ... and if you take it correctly, should only be used for sulphur-yellow flowers
> ...



That's clear and concise. 
I'm going with Paph concolor var immaculatum. It's descriptive and I like it.

Clonal names are easy, so far we have;
'William Erasmus'
'Anne Elizabeth'
'Mary Eleanor'
'Henrietta Emma' 
'George Howard' 
'Elizabeth' 
'Francis' 
'Leonard' 
'Horace' 
'Charles Waring'
You'll recognise the significance of those names Dr Braem.

Regards, Mick


----------



## Roth (Jul 16, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> Clonal names are easy, so far we have;
> 'William Erasmus'
> 'Anne Elizabeth'
> 'Mary Eleanor'
> ...



Better names than my roth 'Arschfick' anyway


----------



## Braem (Jul 16, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> That's clear and concise.
> I'm going with Paph concolor var immaculatum. It's descriptive and I like it.
> 
> Clonal names are easy, so far we have;
> ...


Of course ... as long as you call them what they are "clonal names" ... but they are important in horticulture but have no importance whatsevere in scientific botany. A Paph. sangii is a P. sangii no matter what clonal name the plant gets. The clonal name is given to "a single specific plant" ... not to a species, a varietiy or any botanical entity.


----------



## poozcard (Jul 17, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> That's clear and concise.
> I'm going with Paph concolor var immaculatum. It's descriptive and I like it.



should it be 'fma. immaculatum' ???


----------



## Braem (Jul 17, 2011)

poozcard said:


> should it be 'fma. immaculatum' ???


it is now generally agreed (at least among taxonomists that know what they are doing) that color variations deserve the rank of a form "forma" (fma) only. thus, albinos, albas, rubras, immaculatas, flavas, etc should only be considered forms.


----------



## likespaphs (Jul 17, 2011)

did i miss the discussion or is it easy to explain the difference between ranks (forma, var, etc)? for example, what is the difference between a variety and a forma?


----------



## Braem (Jul 17, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> did i miss the discussion or is it easy to explain the difference between ranks (forma, var, etc)? for example, what is the difference between a variety and a forma?


there are no rules ... but it should be a major difference to be a variety ,,, and a color change is not a major difference .... however, I will gladly repeat myself ... there are no rules that delineate these taxonomic entities ...


----------



## ORG (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't know why you have so a long discussion about.
When you woul like to describe a new colourform then you can take the name which you want. 

But please at first 
think about if it is really necessary to describe it.

Another thing it is with colourforms which are described in the past, like the colourforms of _*Paph. concolor*_.

1888 Reichenbach f. described a yellowish form as var. *sulphurinum*.
1988 Guido Braem described a white form as var. *album*
1998 new classified as forma album by Braem
when I remember correctly without a type)
2000 Chen S.C. and J.Y.Zhang described again a yellowish form as var. _*immaculatum*_.

In 2001 I classified the yellowish on as forma _*sulphurinum*_.
_immaculatum _is only a synonym of _sulphurinum_.

So the correct and fixed names nowerdays are:

For the white form
*Paphiopedilum concolor (Bateman)Pfitzer forma album (Braem)Braem*

For the yellow form
*Paphiopedilum concolor (Bateman)Pfitzer forma suphurinum (Rchb.f.)Gruss*

Difficult is to decide, where the border is between the yellowish and the white form.

No problems is to give beside these official names of the formae also names for the single clone.

Best greetings

Olaf


----------



## poozcard (Jul 19, 2011)

A long discussion gives me, a novice, a chance to study.

Please kindly keep the discussion long.
Thank you.


----------



## Braem (Jul 19, 2011)

will do ... but itbwould be better if you were to ask specific questions


----------

