# Paph. primulinum var. purpurascens?



## PaphLover (Mar 28, 2016)

This little cutie stole my heart, so of course it had to come home with me. It was labelled only Paph. primulinum, but since that's a yellow form, could this one safely be called var. purpurascens? 

Poor little thing is a little wonky because of being pushed around by the much bigger paphs in shipping. It also has fuzz from the packing material attached…so maybe don't judge its beauty or form just yet. 

It's so tiny, the lip is only as big as my pinky fingernail.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Mar 29, 2016)

If there is no doubt that it is Paph primulinum, then _forma_ purpurascens would be correct. When a characteristic is probably due to a single gene difference (like most alba vs. non-alba examples) the _forma_ designation is preferable rather than _var._ as long as someone was smart enough to publish it that way. Color is the only distinct trait of _forma_ purpurascens. 

I tend to automatically doubt the identification of primulinum except from the most reliable sources, but I don't see any specific reason to think this is actually a hybrid, so Paph primulinum _forma_ purpurascens works.


----------



## PaphLover (Mar 29, 2016)

"If there is no doubt that it is Paph primulinum, then forma purpurascens would be correct." 
Hmmm, interesting. I always try to look things up online before I ask here and the 'var.' came up so I used that terminology. Thanks for the correction. It makes sense. 

"I tend to automatically doubt the identification of primulinum except from the most reliable sources"…I'm curious what you mean by this. Is paph primulinum uncommon these days? Has it fallen out of favour?


----------



## C. Rothschild (Mar 29, 2016)

I doubt it's fallen out of favor I just think the pollen is a favorite to use on other plants.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Mar 30, 2016)

PaphLover said:


> "If there is no doubt that it is Paph primulinum, then forma purpurascens would be correct."
> Hmmm, interesting. I always try to look things up online before I ask here and the 'var.' came up so I used that terminology. Thanks for the correction. It makes sense.
> 
> "I tend to automatically doubt the identification of primulinum except from the most reliable sources"…I'm curious what you mean by this. Is paph primulinum uncommon these days? Has it fallen out of favour?



Var. primulinum is certainly a validly published name too, but taxonomic revision happens at all levels. I tend to follow Braem's treatment from Paphiopedilum (2nd edition, 2014) because it is recent, I have it to refer too, and I mostly agree with it. Formal scientific recognition of different flower color forms within one population just doesn't make sense at any higher level than _forma_. I can barely tolerate even that.

Paph primulinum is valid and popular, but there have been so many generations of crossing, back-crossing and re-crossing between it and Paph glaucophyllum, with deliberate and/or careless misrepresentation of hybrids as species, that my natural skepticism kicks in.


----------



## SlipperKing (Mar 30, 2016)

PaphMadMan said:


> Paph primulinum is valid and popular, but there have been so many generations of crossing, back-crossing and re-crossing between it and Paph glaucophyllum, with deliberate and/or careless misrepresentation of hybrids as species, that my natural skepticism kicks in.



Touche!


----------



## PaphLover (Mar 30, 2016)

"Paph primulinum is valid and popular, but there have been so many generations of crossing, back-crossing and re-crossing between it and Paph glaucophyllum, with deliberate and/or careless misrepresentation of hybrids as species, that my natural skepticism kicks in."

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.


----------

