L.purpurata 'Gilbert Rubra'

[Carmella.carey]

(Cattleya) Laelia purpurata Simi-alba 'Gilbert Rubra' from Ecuagenera. I don't think that its considered a simi alba and I think its weird to have rubra in the variety name when its not a rubra variety.
Patrick

 

[Ozpaph]

an attractive flower, none the less.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Looks like a striata or venosa to me.

That’s the issue with horticultural and cultivar names. It can be all over the map and distracts from the real nature or forma/variety of the flower.

 

[terryros]

How wonderful it would be to have an online resource that contained all the appropriate conventions to correctly describe the variations in the different species!

 

[DrLeslieEe]

How wonderful it would be to have an online resource that contained all the appropriate conventions to correctly describe the variations in the different species!

Hmmm maybe I might do an AOS webinar on this? If there is enough interest?

 

[terryros]

What a resource that would be, at least for the probably smallish group of people that would to be accurate with nomenclature!

 

[Ozpaph]

im very interested!

 

[Cearbhael]

I would be though I am a crass amateur! I love to learn new stuff

 

[Guldal]

(Cattleya) Laelia purpurata Simi-alba 'Gilbert Rubra' from Ecuagenera. I don't think that its considered a simi alba and I think its weird to have rubra in the variety name when its not a rubra variety.

I agree with you, that it is really strange that it has been labelled semi-alba (although there is some white to some of the petals! ).
Concerning your worry about the 'Rubra' part, I guess it's not to be perceived as neither a varietal- nor a forma-epithet - and not part of the plants botanical designation.
I would read it as a clonal name, i.e. your particular plant and/or, if a meristem clone, the motherplant was named after a guy called 'Gilbert Rubra'.
Even though a quick internet search reveals, that Ecuagenera sells it as a variety. But this is where, I as an original Paphioholic, see the Catt-people go taxonomically/semantically crazy: designating horticultural clones (croses) as varieties, although the plants botanically speaking are nothing of the sort!

By the way, did I say, that I love the flowers of your plant - such intense colouring and very nice stance! Judging from the photo, they seem to be of a considerable size also (but that's always a bit difficult to judge without measures and or something to compare with). Your plant overall looks exceedingly well grown!

 

[Carmella.carey]

I agree with you, that it is really strange that it has been labelled semi-alba (although there is some white to some of the petals! ). Concerning your worry about the 'Rubra' part, I guess it's not to be perceived as neither a varietal- nor a forma-epithet - and not part of the plants botanical designation. I would read it as a clonal name, i.e. your particular plant and/or, if a meristem clone, the motherplant was named after a guy called 'Gilbert Rubra'. Even though a quick internet search reveals, that Ecuagenera sells it as a variety. But this is where, I as an original Paphioholic, see the Catt-people go taxonomically/semantically crazy: designating horticultural clones (croses) as varieties, although the plants botanically speaking are nothing of the sort! By the way, did I say, that I love the flowers of your plant - such intense colouring and very nice stance! Judging from the photo, they seem to be of a considerable size also (but that's always a bit difficult to judge without measures and or something to compare with). Your plant overall looks excidingly well grown!

I agree with you, that it is really strange that it has been labelled semi-alba (although there is some white to some of the petals! ). Concerning your worry about the 'Rubra' part, I guess it's not to be perceived as neither a varietal- nor a forma-epithet - and not part of the plants botanical designation. I would read it as a clonal name, i.e. your particular plant and/or, if a meristem clone, the motherplant was named after a guy called 'Gilbert Rubra'. Even though a quick internet search reveals, that Ecuagenera sells it as a variety. But this is where, I as an original Paphioholic, see the Catt-people go taxonomically/semantically crazy: designating horticultural clones (croses) as varieties, although the plants botanically speaking are nothing of the sort! By the way, did I say, that I love the flowers of your plant - such intense colouring and very nice stance! Judging from the photo, they seem to be of a considerable size also (but that's always a bit difficult to judge without measures and or something to compare with). Your plant overall looks excidingly well grown!

I agree with you, that it is really strange that it has been labelled semi-alba (although there is some white to some of the petals! ). Concerning your worry about the 'Rubra' part, I guess it's not to be perceived as neither a varietal- nor a forma-epithet - and not part of the plants botanical designation. I would read it as a clonal name, i.e. your particular plant and/or, if a meristem clone, the motherplant was named after a guy called 'Gilbert Rubra'. Even though a quick internet search reveals, that Ecuagenera sells it as a variety. But this is where, I as an original Paphioholic, see the Catt-people go taxonomically/semantically crazy: designating horticultural clones (croses) as varieties, although the plants botanically speaking are nothing of the sort! By the way, did I say, that I love the flowers of your plant - such intense colouring and very nice stance! Judging from the photo, they seem to be of a considerable size also (but that's always a bit difficult to judge without measures and or something to compare with). Your plant overall looks excidingly well grown!

 

[Carmella.carey]

I agree with you, that it is really strange that it has been labelled semi-alba (although there is some white to some of the petals! ).
Concerning your worry about the 'Rubra' part, I guess it's not to be perceived as neither a varietal- nor a forma-epithet - and not part of the plants botanical designation.
I would read it as a clonal name, i.e. your particular plant and/or, if a meristem clone, the motherplant was named after a guy called 'Gilbert Rubra'.
Even though a quick internet search reveals, that Ecuagenera sells it as a variety. But this is where, I as an original Paphioholic, see the Catt-people go taxonomically/semantically crazy: designating horticultural clones (croses) as varieties, although the plants botanically speaking are nothing of the sort!

By the way, did I say, that I love the flowers of your plant - such intense colouring and very nice stance! Judging from the photo, they seem to be of a considerable size also (but that's always a bit difficult to judge without measures and or something to compare with). Your plant overall looks excidingly well grown!

I don't know what the HE that was I just tried to quote your post and it went crazy anyway, I understand cultivar names I just thought it was weird that rubra was in the cultivar name when rubra is a variety / color form in purpurata.
Patrick

 

[David B]

Hmmm maybe I might do an AOS webinar on this? If there is enough interest?

Out of curiosity, I started looking at all the type nomenclature and actual meanings of them and varietal status. I stopped at 2 dozen terms so there is much to look at. Also translation from Portuguese and Spanish can get lost in it's interpretation. Terminology is also influenced by the different cultural and geographic regions in South America. You know. You have been there.

 

[Carmella.carey]

Out of curiosity, I started looking at all the type nomenclature and actual meanings of them and varietal status. I stopped at 2 dozen terms so there is much to look at. Also translation from Portuguese and Spanish can get lost in it's interpretation. Terminology is also influenced by the different cultural and geographic regions in South America. You know. You have been there.

Yeah most people think there's typical, alba, coerulea and simi-alba but there are way more than I ever thought.
Patrick

 

[tomp]

Yes the Brazilians love to make up lots of lovely names for every color form and patterns and even have large shows featuring those forms. It a wonderful thing. Sort of reminds me of the way India uses nomenclature for their TEA.

 

[Carmella.carey]

Yes the Brazilians love to make up lots of lovely names for every color form and patterns and even have large shows featuring those forms. It a wonderful thing. Sort of reminds me of the way India uses nomenclature for their TEA.

The Brazilians have shows and soceitys just for some species such as purpurata and intermedia.
Patrick

 

[Guldal]

Yes the Brazilians love to make up lots of lovely names for every color form and patterns and even have large shows featuring those forms. It a wonderful thing. Sort of reminds me of the way India uses nomenclature for their TEA.

The names certainly are worth their salt in helping to identify specific clones/crosses, and are also nice by sometimes providing some sort of local flavour!
I have nothing against the names per se, what I'm questioning, though, is the strange admixture of botanical and horticultural epithets, that sometimes seem to mar Cattleya nomenclatura, and certainly adds more to confusion than to clarification as it's neither fowl, nor fish (please, bear with this figurative forray into the fauna! )!

 

[tomp]

Hmmm maybe I might do an AOS webinar on this? If there is enough interest?

Leslie
sounds like something right up your alley..so to speak.

 

[Carmella.carey]

The names certainly are worth their salt in helping to identify specific clones/crosses, and are also nice by sometimes providing some sort of local flavour!
I have nothing against the names per se, what I'm questioning, though, is the strange admixture of botanical and horticultural epithets, that sometimes seem to mar Cattleya nomenclatura, and certainly adds more to confusion than to clarification as it's neither fowl, nor fish (please, bear with this figurative forray into the fauna! )!

Its not the clonal/ variety name I'm on about, it's the color form's named like L.purpurata
var.attro-purporea.
Patrick

 

[Guldal]

Its not the clonal/ variety name I'm on about, it's the color form's named like L.purpurata
var.attro-purporea.
Patrick

I got that Patrick...my response to Tom just gave me the possibility to vent my astonishment over the use of terminology by many Catt. people. It reminds one of how things were in the Paph. Camp. 10-15-20 years ago.

Botanists from that camp. would nowadays never give a plant varietal status based alone on the colouring of the flowers alone, there would have to be other morphological differences, such as f.ex. markedly different shape of staminode, of overall flower or sometimes even of leavage. Different colour forms are described as such, 'forma' (fma.).

Thus your example would be: Laelia (if not Cattleya) purpurata fma. attro-purpurea - and if this colour form has not been validly described and published, you would have to add in parenthesis (Hort.), indicating that we are talking of a horticultural designation here.