# Paph primulinum (album?)



## gore42 (Oct 21, 2006)

I just bloomed this Paph primulinum, which my Hawaiian wholesaler sold to me as fma album. My first customer to bloom one of these told me it was a beautiful albino, so I was expecting a bloom with a pale creamy pouch, but this is what I ended up with. 

Obviously, the dorsal isn't all the way open yet... I'm so impatient!












Anyway, now I'm waiting to see the others bloom, so that I can see whether this is normal variation or whether I was sent a mislabeled batch. If you've purchased one of these and you're not happy with the bloom, please let me know, and we can work something out 

As Ever,
Matthew Gore


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

Matt,

I didn't know that _Paph. primulinum_ fma. _album_ exists...

This seems to be the type flower for the species... _Paph. primulinum_ var. _purpurascens_ (or _Paph. purpurascens_, depending upon who you talk to), is usually considered the type for _Paph. primulinum_... it gets confusing... 

-Pat


----------



## gore42 (Oct 21, 2006)

Well, of course I know that the typical yellow form is albinistic  But there have been photos circulating around recently of fma album that have a creamy white pouch. I think Antec posted on here somewhere, and there are a couple that are similar on google images. I don't know whether they are just pale varieties of this, though, or whether they are supposed to be genetically different in some way.

- Matt


----------



## gore42 (Oct 21, 2006)

I see that at the OSF there is a thread with some photos that look much more like what I was expecting, under Paph unknown in the top forum.

- Matt


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 21, 2006)

How long has the flower been open? 

Jon
________
Luv


----------



## cdub (Oct 21, 2006)

Matt, the unknown over on OSF is probably the same as yours. The lighting is so different for each photo so it's difficult to compare a "yellow" vs. a "cream" color. I don't know anything about the forms of primulinum, but I like yours! I passed one up a while back on sale at a vendor, and am kicking myself for it.


----------



## gore42 (Oct 21, 2006)

The flower on this one opened yesterday, at least enough for me to peek under and see the color of the dorsal. Today it's opened a bit more.

Thanks for the input on this everyone 

Matt


----------



## Greenpaph (Oct 21, 2006)

gore42 said:


> Well, of course I know that the typical yellow form is albinistic  But there have been photos circulating around recently of fma album that have a creamy white pouch. I think Antec posted on here somewhere, and there are a couple that are similar on google images. I don't know whether they are just pale varieties of this, though, or whether they are supposed to be genetically different in some way.
> 
> - Matt



Here is mine, Matt.






Greenpaph


----------



## Marco (Oct 21, 2006)

hey Matt, I love these!!

I hope mine blooms like these. I like how the pouch isnt so long, long pouches just look wierd to me. I switched mine to an s/h setup i hope it doesn't mess with the flower developement. I'll post pictures of mine when it opens. It should be due anytime soon . Peter the white pouch is great.


----------



## Lance Birk (Oct 22, 2006)

Matt,

Your photo looks exactly like a true, type-species, P. primulinum. This was the original type species discovered by Liem Kie Wie, who changed his Chinese name to the Indonesian name "Kolopaking" and set up the Simanis Nursery in Java. He found it growing in the Lueser Mountains in Sumatra, Indonesia in 1972. 

Ray Rands got some of those first plants and we bloomed them quite easily, but before Dr. Fowlie was able to describe them, Wood and Taylor published their description. Oddly, all the plants from the first collection were albinos, therefore, the type species is an albino.

There are no "fma album" or "var. album" ---the album variety is the type. Later, P. primulinum var. flavescens was described from subsequent collections by Liem, when he returned to get more of the then thought, much more valuable album variety. I'm quite sure that the "var. purpurascens" is a mis-nomer.

P. liemianum was also named for Liem Kie Wie, who wrote Dr. Fowlie a rather interesting account of his collection of the species, in which he described fighting off an enormous, deadly snake which killed his helper. His account was published in the Orchid Digest.

The photo of the pale flower is probably a result of in-breeding of the weaker type species. It would be a bad mistake to try to label any of these plants without secure knowledge of their actual origin as they have been bred and cross-bred frequently. If you can trust your source Matt, I would go with what he said.

Lance


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 22, 2006)

Greenpaph said:


> Here is mine, Matt.



I've noticed that, when photographing primulinum, that it is very easy to overexpose the bright pouch, making it look white. I took your photo into photoshop and read the pouch -- there is no tonal variation until you get quite close to the edge, indicating overexposure. I suspect the color is a light yellow, but certainly not white. probably something like what you see at the top edge of the pouch and on the tips of the petals. Right?


----------



## Rick (Oct 22, 2006)

It seems like I see more of the pale yellow/cream flowers than the nice stong clear yellow ones. I think they may fade with time too.

I realy like the one you just bloomed Matt.


----------



## gore42 (Oct 22, 2006)

Lance,

Very interesting.... I'm going to have to look up that full story about the giant snakes  

Based on the color of my bloom and the information from this thread, I'll probably label these as "Paph. primulinum" for now. I trust that they are at least Paph primulinum... I was just expecting the lighter pouched variety. I think that to come to a firm conclusion, I'll have to contact the vendor and see what he has to say about them.

Peter, that's what I was expecting, from several photos that I've seen posted recently that are very similar. Lance, is that similar to the form that was described as P. primulinum var. flavescens? 

Dot- I think that Peter's photo may be a touch overexposed from the use of the flash, but I don't think that it's so overexposed as to give the pouch the wrong color... I think that the lack of tonal variation is the result of the base color which is mostly white/cream. I've seen several blooms with this coloration now, and some of them have been carefully exposed. Of course it's hard to tell for sure from a Photo, but my guess is that his is a pale variety that is a touch bright.

And thanks Rick, after looking through dozend of primulinum photos yesterday, I'm starting to like this richer yellow form better too 

- Matt


----------



## Greenpaph (Oct 22, 2006)

I can assure you that the pouch is pure white. Hopefully, I will get a better picture on next blooming.

Sincerely


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 22, 2006)

Greenpaph said:


> I can assure you that the pouch is pure white. Hopefully, I will get a better picture on next blooming.
> 
> Sincerely


If that's the case, try photographing it either in natural light without flash; or if you use flash, bounce it off a white surface (or crinkled, flattened aluminum foil) aimed at the flower from an off-center position. I think you'll have a more accurate rendition of the tonal values than you can get with direct flash.


----------



## Lance Birk (Oct 23, 2006)

I made a mistake that I need to correct:

In my first paph book I went with the original description and used the varietal name "var. flavescens." When I wrote the revised 2nd edition, I had decided that Cribb's change back to Karasawa's and Saito's first citation as "var. purpurascens" made more sense ( less confusion with the album form) and I used it instead.

I should have been more careful in answering Matt's post...guess I need to take a few things off my plate.

Thanks, Mahon, for pointing this out.

I should also mention that the color differences often seen with this species come from the fact that the species and the varietal form have been cross-bred. It can be next to impossible to know which is which.

The account of Liem Khe Wie and the snake is in the May-June issue of the Orchid Digest, vol. 37, No. 3


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 23, 2006)

The white pouch version was line bred from light colored flowers. The original primulinum is the plant that you have....There is no var.album since primulinum is the type in the original description.
In my understanding the var purpurascens is the colored version of primulinum. It has muted coloration somewhat between primulinum and liemianum, and in the flowers I've seen is slightly larger in size from primulinum. I would compare this at similar to the sukhakulii 'Paleface' which has albinistic genes but shows muted tones of color.


----------



## Rick (Oct 23, 2006)

Here's a picture with primulinum var purperescens in it next to a moquetianum. The purpurescens variety has fairly well pigmented flowers and the foliage is darker green with extensive purple spotting underneath.


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 23, 2006)

That's quite a line-up, Rick!


----------



## Mahon (Oct 23, 2006)

...also, adding to _Paph. primulinum_, there is that 'var. _liltii_' (of course, the name is not registered)... I have only one plant, and I must say the flower is about as small as _Paph. helenae_... pretty tall spikes for this variety with closely borne super small, progressive flowers... I have gotten a few different views and opinions about "_Paph. primulinum_ var. _liltii_ from RBG, Kew, one of them being that it could possibly _Paph. kalinae_ (of course it isn't the same at all), another reffering me to a CA grower who named it after their dog (?)... from all the explanations (including those I recieved from The Royal Horticulture Society), the "_Paph. primulinum_ var. _liltii_" originated from a group of imported, wild collected _Paph. primulinum var. purpurascens_... 

So what exactly should these "var. _liltii_ be treated as, a mere form or a distinct variety? Thought I would add this because of the broad discussion upon _Paph. primulinum_... 

-Pat


----------



## Rick (Oct 23, 2006)

A couple of people have sent seed to Meyers Conservatory from a "var liltii".

There is no scale for flower size, but otherwise it looks exactly like a var. purpurense to me.

As you have stated, kalinae is nowhere close to primulinum, if anything (other than a distinct species) it is a subspecies of victor-reginae (or chamberlianum).


----------



## silence882 (Oct 24, 2006)

I think Paph. liltii was coined by Ray Rands in the late '80s or early '90s. He used it in some of his ads in the AOS Bulletin. I'm pretty sure it's considered the same as primulinum fma. purpurascens by most taxonomists. The difference Rands used was that it had an orange-pink pouch vs. the more common pink-purple pouch.

--Stephen


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 24, 2006)

silence882 said:


> I think Paph. liltii was coined by Ray Rands in the late '80s or early '90s. He used it in some of his ads in the AOS Bulletin. I'm pretty sure it's considered the same as primulinum fma. purpurascens by most taxonomists. The difference Rands used was that it had an orange-pink pouch vs. the more common pink-purple pouch.
> 
> --Stephen


That's my understanding, also. Here's my "lilti": Notice the pouch color.







I don't know the size of purpurescens, but my lilti is a *very* small flower. Blooms a very long time.


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 24, 2006)

The original paph primulinum var purpurascens had an orangy pouch versus pink. In fact it looked identical to your variety liltii. The flower is like throwing a yellow wash over a normal cochlopetalum flower. I would say the two are synonymous.
Both primulinum and var.purpurascens are fairly small flowers with var. purpurascens being a smidge larger.


----------

