# Paph. godefroyae or leucochilum?



## Hieu Huynh (Jun 27, 2019)

Hi Slipper hobbyists, I purchased this Paph a year ago, the vendor said it's Paph. leucochilum but now when it blooms, I think it might be Paph. godefroyae as I see some dots on the pouch. I have attached an image for your judgment. Much appreciate for your comments. Thank you in advance.


----------



## troy (Jun 27, 2019)

I would say godefroyae, leucochilum is usually bigger with clear pouch. Curious about your temp, are you at 100° f.? Or close to it on a daily basis?


----------



## Hieu Huynh (Jun 27, 2019)

Thanks Troy for your comment. I live in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. It's quite hot here, the temperature regime relies upon the monsoon season, around 30-32oC in the rain season from mid-May to end of Oct. A little cool in Nov and Dec and extremely hot in Mar to mid-May, varies 37-42oC. I was worried that my Paph could collapse in the extreme heat this year but they don't, they're just damaged by red mites. I'm quite surprised about their heat tolerance.


----------



## Teresa Koncolor (Jul 7, 2019)

I live in New Orleans, Same temps though we've had a dry summer so far. 
I just started with these. I don't dare keep any outside. Indoors I keep them at about 75 F near a window cracked open for some humidity and maybe warmer breeze. 
Outdoors, I have a few mounted/ basket orchids. 
Things tend to rot or get cooked by the heat or fried by the sun here. Then, if that doesn't kill it, a nice hard freeze will.


----------



## Guldal (Jul 25, 2019)

Phillip Cribb treats godefroyae and leucochillum as synonomous, which, I think, makes good sense, as there are no morphological differences between the two. He argues his case well in 'Genus Paphiopedilum', 2nd ed. 

In accordance with newer botanical publications, where variety in colour alone are treated as forms (fma.), maybe it would make sense to describe colour forms of this species with a through and through unspotted lip as: P. godefroyae fma. leucochillum (Hort.). Untill this designation is validly published this must, however, be considered only a horticultural name - thus the 'Hort.'. 

Kind regards,
Jens


----------



## Hieu Huynh (Jul 25, 2019)

Guldal said:


> Phillip Cribb treats godefroyae and leucochillum as synonomous, which, I think, makes good sense, as there are no morphological differences between the two. He argues his case well in 'Genus Paphiopedilum', 2nd ed.
> 
> In accordance with newer botanical publications, where variety in colour alone are treated as forms (fma.), maybe it would make sense to describe colour forms of this species with a through and through unspotted lip as: P. godefroyae fma. leucochillum (Hort.). Untill this designation is validly published this must, however, be considered only a horticultural name - thus the 'Hort.'.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jens for your information. I think it makes sense to treat leucochilum as a form of godefroyae too. When you say varieties in colour alone are treated as forms (fma.), does it mean that a plant var. alba ... should be renamed as fma. alba too?


----------



## Guldal (Jul 25, 2019)

Hieu Huynh said:


> Thanks Jens for your information. I think it makes sense to treat leucochilum as a form of godefroyae too. When you say varieties in colour alone are treated as forms (fma.), does it mean that a plant var. alba ... should be renamed as fma. alba too?



A lot of colour forms have been transferred from varietal status (var.) to form (fma.) - but this is a tricky question, as I don't really know, whether this, strictly botanically speaking, would call for a valid puublication of the new taxonomic status? Or whether this is considered such a small revision, that this isn't required?

Hopefully, some one wiser in these matters, can provide an answer?!


----------



## Stone (Jul 25, 2019)

The Thai nurseries have crossed these 2 species for years and so trying to separate them using commercial plants would be next to pointless. The only way to do that properly would be using wild collected plants from both habitats, something I am almost sure Cribb would not have done going by his highly questionable claims in the past. Burk has been to both habitats and says the godefroyae has a distinctly larger root system (massive in fact) to cope with a dryer or more exposed habitat - different root morphology is definitely not a feature of different ''forms''. ''Leaf tip of leuco NOT TOOTHED - as in it is in godefroyae. Bennet (1984) says their staminodes are ''distinctly different''. ....Godyfroyae....''the staminode is small and squarish in shape with a distinct 'tooth' projecting downwards from the centre of the lower margin. ....leuco.....''the staminodes is distinctly different to that of godefroyae and a spur deformity often occurs on the bottom of the lip. (No detailed description of the staminode). Aside from that, it's easy enough to see they are a different species by just looking at them. godefroyae has many small spots all over the flower and leucochlum has many continuous blotches and streaks of colour. Not to mention that they are separated and could not possibly interbreed in the wild. At the very least you would call them varieties but most definitely not forms. I still prefer species.


----------

