# Paph chamberlainianum vs victoria-reginae



## likespaphs (Sep 25, 2011)

so recently i've seen two well known sellers offering both of these but i thought they were synonyms 

can anyone help explain this?


----------



## Shiva (Sep 25, 2011)

In Orchidwiz, chamberlainianum is considered a subspecies of Victoria-Regina. (No e at the end for this one by the way).


----------



## likespaphs (Sep 25, 2011)

right. 
i thought one was a synonym of the other but i Piping Rock and Orchid Inn both have each of these listed individualy


right... no e



oh... just reread it and you said subspecies
what differentiates it?


----------



## Shiva (Sep 25, 2011)

I found this on Google: Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation.

And some more from another forum:
http://tribes.tribe.net/botanyboard/thread/5337b7b7-b240-4ea9-928f-b2513dff835f


----------



## Leo Schordje (Sep 25, 2011)

Dr. Guido Braem wrote a nice article on this years ago. I am not at home, so can't post it. The article showed scans of the type descriptions. They were described the same year in Gardeners Chronical by the same botanist, I think Low?

Braem's conclusion, Paph chamberlainianum is the correct name for all the plants being called victoria-regina. The species victoria-regina is something different, the type specimen have been lost in one World War or another. What ever the species was the Low was describing as victoria-regina is not chamberlainianum, nor like chamberlainianum. Clearly quite different than chamberlainianum. It is either a lost/extinct species, or victoria-regina is a species that was described later as something else. Perhaps Paph moquettianum or Paph liemianum. Since these names have type specimens, they should stand and use of victoria- regina should be abandoned completely. Paph chamberlainianum is the name that has a type specimen, and is the only one to use. Here Braem disagrees with Cribb and many feel Braem is correct. 

Did I get the sense of your article correct Guido?


----------



## Shiva (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't think that Guido is on this forum anymore, but confusion is.


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

I don't have an opinion yet, as I am just reading this information. This is a good summary of both sides of the argument...



Leo Schordje said:


> Braem's conclusion, Paph chamberlainianum is the correct name for all the plants being called victoria-regina. The species victoria-regina is something different, the type specimen have been lost in one World War or another. What ever the species was the Low was describing as victoria-regina is not chamberlainianum, nor like chamberlainianum. Clearly quite different than chamberlainianum. It is either a lost/extinct species, or victoria-regina is a species that was described later as something else. Perhaps Paph moquettianum or Paph liemianum. Since these names have type specimens, they should stand and use of victoria- regina should be abandoned completely. Paph chamberlainianum is the name that has a type specimen, and is the only one to use. Here Braem disagrees with Cribb and many feel Braem is correct.



According to Bob Wellenstein...



Bob Wellenstein said:


> Paph. victoria-reginae and chamberlainianum were both "described" in consecutive issues of Gardener's Chronicles ib advertisements by Sanders for an incoming shipment of plants to be auctioned. He had not seen the plants or flowers in person. It has been surmised that it became politically expedient for him to name a plant after Chamberlain, so he named the same plant twice and then just stated that the first plants died in transit. If this is true then the first naming, V-R stands as correct. I far prefer chamberlainianum, and felt that assuming Sanders did this without hard evidence simply based on his history of similar deceits was improper and chamberlainianum should stand. The last time I saw Phil Cribb I made this case, and he said he too preferred chamberlainianum, but that they had evidence in Sanders archived letters and journals written by Sanders himself that he had one plant and two names. As a result V-R stands as the first description (advertisements such as this were grandfathered in as valid descriptions when the code of botanical nomenclature was formalized). As far as I know no credible (and even some incredible and uncredible) taxonomist believes that the two names are anything but synonyms. Why the registrar still accepts both is a puzzle, I pointed this out to the previous registrar ten years ago.


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

And now, because I am awesome, I will show you the source documents...

Gardener's Chronicle (Collected Edition) - Feb 13, 1892 - Page 194







Gardener's Chronicle (Collected Edition) - Feb 13, 1892 - Page 201


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

And, from the next issue...

Gardener's Chronicle (Collected Edition) - Feb. 20, 1892 - Page 234






Figure 34:


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

Bonus!

Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener - Apr. 1892


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

Bonus again!!!

Curtis's Botanical Magazine - 1898


----------



## Sirius (Sep 25, 2011)

I am unable to find any early documentation for Cypripedium/Paphiopedilum victoria-regina. I can't find out if it ever re-entered cultivation.

These are the main descriptive points from the articles I posted...

victoria-regina
Type specimen reportedly lost
First plants collected died in transit
Description:
Zigzag inflorescence 2ft. high
Multiple flowers in succession
Bracts not more than 1/2 inch from each other 
Dorsal sepal white, tinged green, lined with blackish purple (broad and short)
Lower sepal light green and dark purple
Petals spreading, undulate, twisted colored white green and purple in lines and dots
Flower hairy
Pouch colored purplish/violet, spotted dark purple with a golden yellow and pea green rim
Base of pouch white and green as are the lobes
Inside of pouch dotted with purple
Staminode black and green, sometimes with a green line through the middle
Flowers 4 inches across


chamberlainianum
Type specimen reportedly archived
First plants collected bloomed and were reported in multiple publications
Description:
Flowers in great profusion (simultaneously???)
Leaves 2 feet long and 2 inches wide, mottled
Dorsal sepal yellowish-white with six rosy-purple lines (three on each side of the midrib) with profuse rosy-purple spots at base of dorsal sepal
Lower sepal same as the dorsal
Both sepals are hairy on the back
Petals spreading, curled and twisted spotted with crimson edged with white hairs
Pouch colored white spotted with rose on the lower portion
Flowers 4 inches across

According to Cribb, Sander confessed in his own journal/letters that he improperly named the same orchid twice. We need to see those documents to make an informed decision. Maybe I am missing something, but it sure sounds like the description of victoria-regina could also be describing chamberlainianum.


----------



## Pete (Sep 25, 2011)

Shiva said:


> I don't think that Guido is on this forum anymore, but confusion is.



where did he go? Wasnt he here just like a few weeks ago?


----------



## SlipperFan (Sep 25, 2011)

That's impressive, John. Are you posting that on your site?


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 25, 2011)

Pete said:


> where did he go? Wasnt he here just like a few weeks ago?



According to the membership listing Guido was last on 09/23/2011. So it wasn't that long ago.


----------



## NYEric (Sep 25, 2011)

Wow! Superlibrarian!


----------



## Cochlopetalum (Sep 26, 2011)

wow, this is contradictory. It certainly looks like they changed the name of the species. The first brief description of chamberlainianum sounds nothing like a cochlopetalum, more like Paph. x kimballianum. I wish I had a time machine.


----------



## Ozpaph (Sep 26, 2011)

Yes, you are awesome!
Really interesting stuff.


----------



## Roth (Sep 26, 2011)

Cochlopetalum said:


> wow, this is contradictory. It certainly looks like they changed the name of the species. The first brief description of chamberlainianum sounds nothing like a cochlopetalum, more like Paph. x kimballianum. I wish I had a time machine.



Actually, the first description of Chamberlainianum is exceedingly clear:

- Mt Merapi, known today as Mt. Marapi. It is the home of victoria MARIAE
- Very few plants survived, they were very weak. All the cochlos can stand a month or two in boxes, believe me...  EXCEPT victoria MARIAE...
- Very long leaves. So far I have seen a lot of wild cochlos, and only victoria MARIAE has very long leaves... 3ft long and 2inches wide fits perfectly victoria Mariae. The bicolor flowers would fit as well, if they were broken jungle flowers, it could look like a bicolor flower...
- mottled leaves. The victoria mariae from Marapi, as opposite to the second location, have nearly always mottled leaves, sometimes very strongly. Liemianum has mottled leaves sometimes, as for chamberlainianum, what we get as 'latifolium' sometimes have strongly mottled leaves, but that's a minority in a shipment ( maybe 5% with mottled leaves). The only cochlopetalum that can be collected as batch of only mottled leafed plants is clearly victoria mariae... 

So apparently the first two advertisement for chamberlainianum were about victoria mariae, not victoria reginae, and the plants died. That would fit the bill... victoria mariae arrived alive apparently later in 1892 to be described in 1893...

What they describe in more details afterwards as chamberlainianum, with the drawings (and the location change from Sumatra to New Guinea), etc... is clearly not victoria mariae. But the advertisements are definitely talking about victoria mariae.


----------



## Shiva (Sep 26, 2011)

SlipperKing said:


> According to the membership listing Guido was last on 09/23/2011. So it wasn't that long ago.



Are you sure of the date Rick. I found no entry for Guido on that day. It may be the month before.

At any rate, I do remember reading a bad exchange between Guido and others at the end of which he said something like: ''That's it, I quit!'' I don't remember the exact circumstances though. 

New information: 
Dr Braem's last entry was on September 2 and I quote precisely: ''_OK that's it ... I am no longer wasting my time with idiots like you and Hakone'' _


----------



## Cochlopetalum (Sep 26, 2011)

Thank you Roth, it sounds likely. I did not know victoria-mariae could have mottled leaves, I have not dared to cultivate the species yet, sins it´s more sensitive. The pictures I've seen has been of plants with plain leaves. Mt Merapi is a good match with that conclusion.


----------



## SlipperKing (Sep 26, 2011)

Shiva said:


> Are you sure of the date Rick. I found no entry for Guido on that day. It may be the month before.
> 
> At any rate, I do remember reading a bad exchange between Guido and others at the end of which he said something like: ''That's it, I quit!'' I don't remember the exact circumstances though.
> 
> ...



The Sept 2 date was probably the last time he posted any reply but if you look up mrembers from the tab above you will see Braem logged on and probably didn't post on the 09/23. It's what Eric refers to as "lurking"


----------



## Shiva (Sep 26, 2011)

Oh! I wasn't aware that logins were counted even when no posting was done. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Roth (Sep 26, 2011)

Cochlopetalum said:


> Thank you Roth, it sounds likely. I did not know victoria-mariae could have mottled leaves, I have not dared to cultivate the species yet, sins it´s more sensitive. The pictures I've seen has been of plants with plain leaves. Mt Merapi is a good match with that conclusion.



The plants with plain leaves are the one you usually see today, as there are very, very few people crazy enough to order jungle plants ( that's why victoria mariae is rare in cultivation too...). 

Fro my experience the colonies of plants with mottled leaves tends to have an orange pouch, the plain green leaves are more purple violet.

Here is a picture of a mottle leafed victoria mariae:







One more note about chamberlainianum. So far there are many hybrids sold under that name, that came from Van der Weijden in Kudelstart. When I tried to get original chamberlainianum, I usually ended up with the 'latifolium' type. 

The real 'latifolium' form of chamberlainainum have extremely, hard like wood, thick leaves, with a rough surface. You very clearly cannot bend them without breaking them. 

The normal chamberlainianum has quite coriaceous leaves, but much softer. Many plants have tesselated leaves, sometimes very heavily. It is a very rare species from the wild nowadays.

Liemianum has smooth leaves, much softer. 

victoria mariae has leaves that may well be amongst the largest of Paphiopedilum overall ( the 3ft from Sander is a reality, I measured a couple of mine a few days ago, and the leaves are about 80+cm x 5-7 cm wide, floppy. The texture would be something between sangii and spicerianum when they come from the wild.

Anyway, except buying fresh jungle plants from the collector, I would not trust anyone selling cochlopetalum 'species'. I have seen too many people going to the Netherlands, from the USA, from Europe, and from Japan, choosing from pot plants, and tagging them as primulinum, glaucophyllum, liemianum, chamberlainianum... for the last 15 years. I do not think there are many real primulinum around either... 

And, what is the most important, the Dutches had 3 nurseries/joint ventures with Indonesian growers as early as the 70's. 

So there are a lot of Pinnochios, Pinnochios yellow, Avalon Mist, etc... around in Indo.


----------



## Cochlopetalum (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanks you for all that information, Roth. This is a real problem for me trying to collect cochlopetalum species. Ther are only a few of my plants that feels realy genuine. These are some of my liemianum from Röllke, two plants of kalinae (difficult to grow sufficient) from Orchid & More. And possibly one young plant of latifolium from Popow, it has hard, leathery, succulent and broad leaves with a rough surface. Not as woody as you describe, but the plant is young and grown at my home , leafspan only 33 cm.


----------



## Cochlopetalum (Sep 26, 2011)

Maybee I should give my latifolium some more light, that might produce some harder growth, I grow it in a rather low light position.


----------



## paphioboy (Sep 26, 2011)

Roth said:


> The real 'latifolium' form of chamberlainainum have extremely, hard like wood, thick leaves, with a rough surface. You very clearly cannot bend them without breaking them.
> 
> The normal chamberlainianum has quite coriaceous leaves, but much softer. Many plants have tesselated leaves, sometimes very heavily. It is a very rare species from the wild nowadays.
> 
> ...



Is it possible for you to post a picture of these plants side by side to compare? I'm sure most of us will find it easier to distinguish between the members of this complex subgenus if we can see what the actual plants look like.


----------



## NYEric (Sep 26, 2011)

I didn't think he [Guido] was talking about me!


----------



## Shiva (Sep 26, 2011)

NYEric said:


> I didn't think he [Guido] was talking about me!


 
Not specifically! oke:

But when you quit for two or three people, you also quit for everybody else.


----------

