ecuadorense or pearcei?

[cnycharles]

how do you tell these two apart? I have a plant that has been in flower for most of this year, bought a phrag pearcei (in bud) from piping rock when he was at our orchid society christmas party/dinner. picture was posted here
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24114

then tonight I was looking at old auction threads and checked out a canadian auction for a phrag ecuadorense, and the plant/flower here
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20565
looks just like mine to my eye; how do you tell them apart?

 

[John M]

Your plant is the same as my plant. Like me, what you've got is pearcei v. ecuadorense. Some, like me, are taxonomic "splitters" and simply call these plants Phrag. ecuadorense. Piping rock could've used either Phrag. pearcei, Phrag. pearcei v. ecuadorense, or just Phrag. ecuadorense and still been correct; depending on whether or not you are a splitter or a lumper. An arguement can be made for each name being correct and/or incorrect.

I'm a splitter because when "varieties" of a species with different physical characteristics are used to create hybrids, they produce very different results. So, for the sake of clarity, I follow the thinking that to split the physically differing varieties off into distinct species is the way to go. I don't consider albino varieties to be different species because that's only a colour difference, not a physical shape/growth habit difference. For example: when you use Paph. glaucophyllum to make a cross, the offspring are very different from the offspring of the same cross using glaucophyllum v. moquetteanum, which is so much larger and differently shaped than regular glaucophyllum. Therefore, I believe moquetteanum should be recognised as a distinct species, not as a variety of glaucophyllum.

 

[NYEric]

Are pearcei and ecuadorense that distinct!?

 

[John M]

Eric. The nomenclature of these plants is a mess. In truth, what we call ecuadorense, is actually pearcei. What we call pearcei is actually a natural hybrid involving pearcei and boisserianum. Also, what we call amazonica is a natural hybrid involving pearcei and reticulatum (a variety of boisserianum).

So, technically, ecuadorense does not really exist; but, in horticulture, we use ecuadorense to refer to pearcei and we use pearcei to refer to the natural hybrid also known as amazonica.

Sometimes you'll hear about large pearcei and small pearcei. The large pearcei is actually a natural hybrid involving pearcei and boisserianum. What is commonly referred to as small pearcei is what we call ecuadorense. In order to keep things straight, you have to keep a number of taxonomic terms in mind and you have to keep in mind the way we're missusing them!

Bottom line, the small, grass-like ecuadorense (aka pearcei v. ecuadorense), is a true natural species (pearcei) and you can call it pearcei, pearcei v. ecuadorense or ecuadorense and still be correct to some degree. Even though just "pearcei" is the most correct name, most people would think you're referring to the larger natural hybrid. So, to keep things straight, it's best to refer to this little plant as pearcei v. ecuadorense or just ecuadorense. Additionally, it's best to refer to the large pearcei as either pearcei (which is the name it's been awarded with), or more correctly, refer to it as x amazonica, because it really does have boisserianum blood in it to some degree.

 

[NYEric]

Clear as mud!
Just kidding, thanks for clearing that up. Just imagining the parents wouldn't amazonica have that weird ruffling/twirling of the lateral petals? There is a hybrid, Phrag Future Impact, pearcei var. ecuadorense x St. Ouen, and I was confused as why Phrag Ice Princess was different.

 

[Rick]

Sometimes you'll hear about large pearcei and small pearcei. The large pearcei is actually a natural hybrid involving pearcei and boisserianum. What is commonly referred to as small pearcei is what we call ecuadorense. In order to keep things straight, you have to keep a number of taxonomic terms in mind and you have to keep in mind the way we're missusing them!

Did someone actually verify this by DNA analysis or is this speculation since there is so much variation in wild populations?

This is a very common widespread species. +/- 20% or 30% variability of parameters is well within a species concept for a common plant.

We have all kinds of common natives in TN that are all over the place in size color and habit. My wife and I recently pulled over to check out a 2+ ft tall plant with pink/purple flowers that with the first driveby I thought could have been a purple fringed orchid. It turned out to be just a common flox, that just 50 ft farther up the road was the normal 8" tall version. I'm sure its not a hybrid, maybe a polyploid, but sure as heck not a different species.

Bottom line is the definition of a species is not constrained by taxonomic metrics of a handful of choice collected specimens. If the the naturally interbreeding population has a lot of inherent variation, then the present taxonomic description is inadequate.

 

[SlipperFan]

I thought amazonica was a synonym for richteri.
http://www.phragweb.info/phragmipedium/species/synonyms_phrag.asp

 

[Rick]

I thought amazonica was a synonym for richteri.
http://www.phragweb.info/phragmipedium/species/synonyms_phrag.asp

Yup as far as nomenclature goes.

Maybe there is really only one master Phrag species for all the Himantopetalum and Lorifolia forms since they interbreed so freely in the wild, they might as well all be just forms of the same species.

Kind of like humans. Tons of variation with generally random interbreeding, but all Homo sapiens.

 

[Phrag-Plus]

to be or not to be?

To my point of view and knowledge your plant is Phrag pearcei.
I’m agree than there is a big mix up with Phragmipediums in general, but not all pearcei on the market are richterii. The richterii is much bigger and different…
But I’m agreed than some hybrids between richterii and pearcei even ecuadorense are possibly found.

I like to follow Gary’s description to separate pearcei from ecuadorense ( or pearcei var. ecuadorense.)

And on your photo just by the way the petals are set on the flower it is pearcei.

Phrag. pearcei (petals are strongly twisted and held at 45 degrees from the flower when it full mature)

Phrag. pearcei var. ecuadorense (petals are lightly twisted and are tight to the pouch) see my plant.

Phrag. richterii (syn. amazonica) this one is said as a natural hybrid between boissierianum and pearcei. In fact it is true than it show lot of similarities with Phrag. Taras but still different for me. And offspring resemble to Phrag. richterii too and work not similar in breeding.…

 

[cnycharles]

Hello JP,
Thanks for the info. I agree that my plant's flowers do have twisted and offset petals. Though John M's flowers look exactly like mine, when I look at the size of the plant/leaves it looks a fair amount smaller than of mine. This could be allowed to culture/conditions, though? Your plant and john's are both about the same size though the flowers are still the same size as on my plant. It could be yours have been in higher light, and the vendor who I purchased from had lower light (I know that his greenhouses are at about the same latitude as I am and we both have the usual cloudy conditions during the winter).

I know I can't tell what anything is, and the orchid judges didn't tell anyone at the last show that 'it isn't a pearcei', so I'll just be happy that I have a nice plant! (and keep watering it) I will see, however, if the new growths are as large as the one when I bought it, or if they are smaller/larger in my conditions