Here is the first flowering from my plant out of the cross (labiata (albo-oculata) x dowiana var. aurea ‘Jerry’s Best’) made by Orchids Limited.
The flowering lead had a prominent double sheath, typical of labiata. The inflorescence has three flowers, the largest of which has a natural width of 13 cm and a height of 15 cm. The flower has characteristics of both parents. The fragrance is strong and pleasant, reflecting dowiana more than labiata.
The descriptor “albo-oculata” for Cattleya labiata was first used in an 1897 publication. Here is a link to an Orchid Board post about labiata (albo-oculata) ‘Canaima’s Monica’ AM/AOS. The flower is white, except for some anthocyanin in the hypochile (basal portion of the labellum) hidden from a standard frontal view.
https://www.orchidboard.com/communi...culata-canaimas-monica-am-aos.html#post827716
The yellow of dowiana is very recessive, so it rarely comes through in a hybrid. Immediately when my flowers opened, there was faint yellow on the back of the sepals, and the petals had a slight tan color. However, within a day or two, sepals and petals faded to the dominating white of the labiata. This is an acceptable first flowering, but I need one or two more flowering cycles to decide whether the size, configuration, and coloration are good enough to make it a long-term keeper.
Cattleya dowiana is unusual among unifoliate Cattleyas in several ways, including having two Kew-accepted infraspecies: var. aurea and var. dowiana. This was a compromise of a century-long “debate” about whether Cattleya dowiana and Cattleya aurea were separate species. DrLeslieEe made an excellent post in 2022 in the following link detailing the difference between these two.
https://www.slippertalk.com/threads/cattleya-dowiana-var-aurea-‘golden-dragon’s-blood’.54357/#post-740624
Veitch registered the cross (dowiana x labiata) as Fabia in 1894. Timely records were difficult for the RHS in the first half of the twentieth century; Fabia was incorrectly used again to register different hybrids in 1906 and 1921. In addition, six other duplicate (dowiana x labiata) crosses were registered during those years; they are now synonyms of Fabia (1894).
In 2019, Orquídeas Eva in Columbia (natural habitat of dowiana var. aurea) registered (labiata x dowiana var. aurea) as Eva’s Fábula en Tus Ojos. The online translation I got for this name is “Eva’s Fable in Your Eyes,” but please improve this if you can. The RHS must have concluded that Fabia (1894) was made with dowiana var. dowiana, and according to the rules, when the cross with labiata was made with dowiana var. aurea, a new hybrid registration was acceptable.
A similar situation occurred with dowiana and warscewiczii. The cross (dowiana x warscewiczii) was registered as Hardyana (1896). The cross (dowiana var. aurea x warscewiczii) was registered as Semontiana in 1902; this is not a synonym of Hardyana in RHS (I happen to have a plant of Semontiana).
The flowering lead had a prominent double sheath, typical of labiata. The inflorescence has three flowers, the largest of which has a natural width of 13 cm and a height of 15 cm. The flower has characteristics of both parents. The fragrance is strong and pleasant, reflecting dowiana more than labiata.
The descriptor “albo-oculata” for Cattleya labiata was first used in an 1897 publication. Here is a link to an Orchid Board post about labiata (albo-oculata) ‘Canaima’s Monica’ AM/AOS. The flower is white, except for some anthocyanin in the hypochile (basal portion of the labellum) hidden from a standard frontal view.
https://www.orchidboard.com/communi...culata-canaimas-monica-am-aos.html#post827716
The yellow of dowiana is very recessive, so it rarely comes through in a hybrid. Immediately when my flowers opened, there was faint yellow on the back of the sepals, and the petals had a slight tan color. However, within a day or two, sepals and petals faded to the dominating white of the labiata. This is an acceptable first flowering, but I need one or two more flowering cycles to decide whether the size, configuration, and coloration are good enough to make it a long-term keeper.
Cattleya dowiana is unusual among unifoliate Cattleyas in several ways, including having two Kew-accepted infraspecies: var. aurea and var. dowiana. This was a compromise of a century-long “debate” about whether Cattleya dowiana and Cattleya aurea were separate species. DrLeslieEe made an excellent post in 2022 in the following link detailing the difference between these two.
https://www.slippertalk.com/threads/cattleya-dowiana-var-aurea-‘golden-dragon’s-blood’.54357/#post-740624
Veitch registered the cross (dowiana x labiata) as Fabia in 1894. Timely records were difficult for the RHS in the first half of the twentieth century; Fabia was incorrectly used again to register different hybrids in 1906 and 1921. In addition, six other duplicate (dowiana x labiata) crosses were registered during those years; they are now synonyms of Fabia (1894).
In 2019, Orquídeas Eva in Columbia (natural habitat of dowiana var. aurea) registered (labiata x dowiana var. aurea) as Eva’s Fábula en Tus Ojos. The online translation I got for this name is “Eva’s Fable in Your Eyes,” but please improve this if you can. The RHS must have concluded that Fabia (1894) was made with dowiana var. dowiana, and according to the rules, when the cross with labiata was made with dowiana var. aurea, a new hybrid registration was acceptable.
A similar situation occurred with dowiana and warscewiczii. The cross (dowiana x warscewiczii) was registered as Hardyana (1896). The cross (dowiana var. aurea x warscewiczii) was registered as Semontiana in 1902; this is not a synonym of Hardyana in RHS (I happen to have a plant of Semontiana).
