# What is this species?



## gore42 (Sep 12, 2006)

I was recently chatting with a vendor in Asia, and he sent me this photo of a species that he has available.

According to the vendor, there is no question that this is a true species (not hybrid, I mean... it may be just a variety of another species). The question is, what is it? Have any of you seen it before?

The vendor gave me a name for it, in this form: Paph species-X var. vendor's-name. Needless to say, I think the vendor is trying to get a little extra advertising mileage out of the fact that the plants are an uncommon variety... I seriously doubt that the variety as he named it has been described (it doesn't turn up in any of my research). 

So, here's the bloom photo, with the name blurred out so that you won't be influenced. What is it?







Let me know if you have any ideas 

- Matthew Gore


----------



## silence882 (Sep 12, 2006)

Looks like a haynaldianum that isn't open all the way. The staminode's a dead giveaway. I would doubt that it's a distinct variety...

--Stephen


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Sep 12, 2006)

To be honest, looks like haynaldianum x richardianum to me. Never seen this hybrid in person though.

Jon
________
PORN


----------



## gore42 (Sep 12, 2006)

OK, so it's haynaldianum  The vendor is calling this a variety, claiming that this is the full size bloom. It doesn't look all the way open to me, either. 

It would be interesting if it were open all the way. And actually, I think that the dorsal is interesting either way. 

- Matt


----------



## Mahon (Sep 12, 2006)

Personally, it looks to be a hybrid... I agree with Jon, possibly a _Paph. haynaldianum_ x _Paph. richardianum_... 

Any idea on the origin of this plant?

-Pat


----------



## slippertalker (Sep 12, 2006)

It's more richly colored than either haynaldianum or richardianum usually are....There is a lot of variation with both lowii and haynaldianum since they are dispersed over a large area. This is either a highly colored endemic or something new.


----------



## Heather (Sep 12, 2006)

The dorsal has a lot of color in it also. Is it Gideon who had a haynaldianum or lowii with a particularly purple dorsal? 

The petal stance reminded me of richardianum also, but I thought it must just not be fully opened. Then again, looking in Birk's book, there's so much variation in lowii....hrm...


----------



## kentuckiense (Sep 12, 2006)

Also, color is pretty easy to manipulate in digital photographs.


----------



## Rick (Sep 12, 2006)

silence882 said:


> Looks like a haynaldianum that isn't open all the way. The staminode's a dead giveaway. I would doubt that it's a distinct variety...
> 
> --Stephen



I completely agree especially given the staminode differences between haynaldianum vs lowii and richardianum.

The only thing that is different in this flower from most haynaldianum is the lack of distinct spotting in the dorsal sepal (but you can still see faint spotting), and the lip is better colored than most.


----------



## SlipperFan (Sep 12, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Also, color is pretty easy to manipulate in digital photographs.


Certainly my thoughts. Also, some digital cameras tend to over-saturate certain colors.


----------



## silence882 (Sep 12, 2006)

It really looks to me like a very nicely colored haynaldianum. I would expect a hybrid staminode to be markedly different from either of the species parents. May I suggest asking for a pic of the whole spike? At least that way you could tell if the grower's telling the truth about the bloom being fully open.

--Stephen

quick addition: Gideon has a sweet haynaldianum:
http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphspecies/Paphhaynaldianum1.jpg


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 12, 2006)

I recall references to "vinicolor" haynaldianums a few years back....as far as I know they were just clones that had been selected for darker color...assuming that the photo hasn't been manipulated, the colors could be due to the plant blooming under cool temperatures...there is no question that even an ordinary haynaldianum will look better if bloomed cool. But that flower is definitely not fully open...if it is, it is either not full haynaldianum, or has a shape that cancels out the good color...Take care, Eric


----------



## SlipperFan (Sep 13, 2006)

Everything about that photo shows that the saturation has been pumped up. Look at the background, and the tie...

Out of curiosity, I opened the image in Photoshop, and had to desaturate -35 to make the colors more realistic.


----------



## Heather (Sep 13, 2006)

silence882 said:


> quick addition: Gideon has a sweet haynaldianum:
> http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphspecies/Paphhaynaldianum1.jpg



Ah, that's the one I was thinking of, looked and couldn't find it here. Thanks Stephen.


----------



## gore42 (Sep 13, 2006)

Dot, I did something similar. I didn't get realistic looking colors with hue/saturation adjustments, but I did with just plain contrast/brightness... reduced by around 30. 

I've written back to the vendor to see if he can list what is supposed to be worthy of a new varietal name and for a photo of a fully developed bloom. For now, I think I'll pass them by.

Thanks for your input, everyone!

Matt


----------



## Shadow (Dec 9, 2009)

Two and a half years ago I bought a one growth plant from a european vendor, who bought it from asian vendor and the same photo was supplied. I believe, probably, the original source is the same as yours. Now, finally, when it grew in 3 growth plant, I've noticed a bud through the leaves. Hopefully I won't do anything wrong and it will bloom. It is interesting how different it will be from the original photo. It is my first haynaldianum.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 9, 2009)

Cool Shadow. Make sure you post the developing flower spike!


----------



## Shadow (Dec 12, 2009)

OK! The first photo, done today.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 12, 2009)

Yup! I see something going on inside! Sweet!


----------



## nikv (Dec 14, 2009)

kentuckiense said:


> Also, color is pretty easy to manipulate in digital photographs.


A friend of mine years ago taught me to always look at the leaves. If they don't appear as a normal green, then the photo has probably been digitally altered. I'm guessing that is the case with the original photo in this thread.


----------



## Shadow (Dec 19, 2009)

Is the tip of the bud supposed to be purple? I'm not sure if it is really blasted or...? But the blasted buds are brown and this one dark purple, as far as I can see...


----------



## valenzino (Dec 19, 2009)

I know this variety.Is only a new colony of haynaldianum,that is quite dark.Shure is a species cause the"asian vendor" that is selling them,sells only wild collected plants.
He loves to put his name on some plants,but never true names.In my opinion is dangerous bussiness with him.


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 19, 2009)

Shadow said:


> Is the tip of the bud supposed to be purple? I'm not sure if it is really blasted or...? But the blasted buds are brown and this one dark purple, as far as I can see...


Purple is a good thing. Brown usually isn't!...New PIC time!


----------



## Shadow (Jan 4, 2010)

Update.


----------



## Shadow (Mar 26, 2010)

So, here we are. Doesn't look similar to the first photo at all, I think. Dorsal has spots, petals went upward... just a typical haynaldianum....


----------



## UweM (Mar 26, 2010)

have a look here

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13921&highlight=haynaldianum


----------



## Shadow (Mar 26, 2010)

UweM said:


> have a look here
> 
> http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13921&highlight=haynaldianum


Yes, I've seen it. But why are you showing me that thread? In this thread I'm comparing photo of vendor who sold me this plant to my photo of this plant taken when it is in bloom. And I'm writing in this thread because Gore was offered the same plant with the same photo at the same time, but didn't buy it. Probably, he was right... But it has nothing to do with other plants and sources. In this example I'm just showing that "showed plant" doesn't equal "bloomed plant" in result.


----------



## UweM (Mar 26, 2010)

@Shadow..this was not only for you..

...only a possible answer for the question of this thread


----------

