# phrag. warscewiczianum



## Trimorph (Jun 14, 2012)

In full bloom again:

phragmipedium warscewiczianum







With 60cm long petals!


Trimorph


----------



## Tom499 (Jun 14, 2012)

I do love this phrag!

I think I need one.


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

One of the best I've seen.:clap::clap:

Where are you?


----------



## Heather (Jun 14, 2012)

Fabulous!


----------



## likespaphs (Jun 14, 2012)

great!


----------



## Shiva (Jun 14, 2012)

Very nice growing. Congrats!


----------



## W. Beetus (Jun 14, 2012)

Wonderful display of blooms!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 14, 2012)

:smitten::clap::drool::smitten:


----------



## SlipperKing (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm so jealous every time someone post this species! I never have any luck with these guys. Just fantastic!


----------



## Ruth (Jun 15, 2012)

Wow, look at those petals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## raymond (Jun 15, 2012)

WOW very nice


----------



## Trimorph (Jun 17, 2012)

Thanks for the compliments.
I bought it from a germany nursery one year ago and it seems to be a verry uncomplicated and good growing species.


----------



## eaborne (Jun 18, 2012)

Great job!


----------



## Susie11 (Jun 18, 2012)

Marvelous!


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 18, 2012)

Also known as popowii, BTW.

I get so confused with these names...


----------



## Paphman910 (Jun 19, 2012)

Wow! Looks nice!

Paphman910


----------



## e-spice (Jun 19, 2012)

Spectacular.


----------



## Ray (Jun 19, 2012)

I "won" one of those in my OS auction in February. It has three spikes, but only one bud has just opened.


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Jun 19, 2012)

Stunning!


----------



## Drorchid (Jun 20, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> Also known as popowii, BTW.
> 
> I get so confused with these names...



or warscewiczii, or humboldtii, or caudatum var roseum, or caudatum var warscewiczianum.... to make it even more confusing!

I have noticed that even the RHS is confused, as this species is listed both now as warscewiczianum and humboldtii. A year ago they were listed as warscewiczii (syn. popowii)...

It is a nice specimen btw!

Robert


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 20, 2012)

Drorchid said:


> or warscewiczii, or humboldtii, or caudatum var roseum, or caudatum var warscewiczianum.... to make it even more confusing!
> 
> I have noticed that even the RHS is confused, as this species is listed both now as warscewiczianum and humboldtii. A year ago they were listed as warscewiczii (syn. popowii)...
> 
> ...



So what will happen when they do DNA of Phrags?! It would be nice if they could clear this up.


----------



## Drorchid (Jun 21, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> So what will happen when they do DNA of Phrags?! It would be nice if they could clear this up.



DNA would not solve anything in this case. Unlike with some other orchids, it is very clear what the individual "taxa" are, there is just a lot of confusion/fighting of what to call/name each taxa; it all boils down to priority. Who ever named a species first, gets priority. Unfortunately the individual taxonomists are unclear of which names gets priority. 

DNA does help when we are unclear to say within what species a certain population belongs, this is usually the case when we are dealing with a a very variable species that grows in a large area. Sometimes we are dealing with 2 distinct species that have introgressed with each other. An example of such would be the Paph. godefroyae/leuchochilum/ang-thong/niveum complex. In this case DNA would be helpful as when an individual population is found that does not really fit with either species (say an ang-thong type) it will tell you to which species it belongs, or if it is of hybrid origin. 

In the case of Phrag. caudatum and it's relatives it is clear that there are 5 distinct taxa, that are all very easily distinguishable from each other. In my opinion we are dealing with 3 separate species.

The first is: *Phrag caudatum*. This species is native to Peru and Ecuador.

The second is the lighter colored species: *Phrag. lindenii*. It has 2 distinct subspecies. As the subspecies with no pouch was described first, the name of the species had priority and it should be Phrag. lindenii. The other subspecies within this species is Phrag. lindenii subspecies wallisii. Unlike Phrag. lindenii subspecies lindenii it has a pouch. Both subspecies are native to mainly Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador (also found in a little area of Northern Peru).

The third species (and this one has caused the most confusion when it comes to naming it), is native to Central America (Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras): *Phrag. warscewiczii*. It has the darkest flowers of any of the long-petaled species. I am going by Christenson, and calling it Phrag. warscewiczii. Again there are two distinct subspecies. The first has normal flowers and is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies warscewiczii (synonym of Phrag. popowii). The second subspecies only grows in a very small area of Southern Mexico, and lacks a staminodal shield. Also this subspecies unlike its sister subspecies will self-pollinate. This subspecies is called Phrag. warscewiczii subspecies exstaminodium.

Hope this helps!
Robert


----------

