Laeila pururata werckhauseri

[dodidoki]

A darker form.View attachment IMG_20230529_104359.jpg

 

[GuRu]

Lovely and great to see it ..... but why do you name your purpuratas sometimes Cattleya and sometimes Laelia ?

 

[dodidoki]

Lovely and great to see it ..... but why do you name your purpuratas sometimes Cattleya and sometimes Laelia ?

Thank you.Very simple: I m an old fashion man.When i learned about orchids many years ago, taxonomy based on clear difference: cattleyas have 4 pollinias, laelias have 8. Only exeption was dormanniana with 4 complete and aonther 4 rudimentary pollinias. Later everithing changed based on a misty Dna analysis, some laelia turned to cattleya, others to hofmansegella, few catts turned to guarianthae, many sophros torned to cattleya, others remained sophro....full of chaos....pupurata is laelia in my mind but officially now it is cattleya.

 

[monocotman]

Wonderful form!

 

[Guldal]

I m an old fashion man .....

I think, the inconseque and ambivalence reflected in your naming of this species, make you even more old fashioned than you might be aware of, Istvan!

The Chadwicks, in their first edition of their book on The Classic Cattleyas, have a fascinating account of the history of the species (pp.153-157, 2006). It was in the 19th century described by preeminent botanists as Cattleya (e.g. Lemaire, Beer) as well as Laelia (Lindley). The Chadwicks rather wittily liked the chaotic status of the species' classification to "... a game of botanical checkers" (p. 156).
The Chadwicks chastisize Lindley's taxonomic position to place purpurata within the genus Laelia (later on to be codified by Bentham and Hooker, supported by Veitch) for only taking into account the number of pollinias, while neglecting other important features, such as geographical distribution ( Mexico vs. the South of Brazil) and other morphological features: "... it's pseudobulbs and flower spikes [are] like the typical South American large-flowered Cattleya species, not the Mexican laelias" (p. 155). That placing purpurata within Cattleya now furthermore is supported by emerging genetic evidence, no matter how misty, is to be considered, but only another piece of the puzzle.
The Chadwicks ascribe the circumstance that no one during the entire 20th century did challenge the classification, that kept the species purpurata out of the genus Cattleya, "despite its atrocious logic" to the fact, that "... even a child of three or four could tell the difference between four and eight".
In their words, "It... took modern science in a new millennium to separate Brazil from Mexico" (p. 156) - or, maybe, phrased in another way, that it is with the distinction behind the classification within laelia as it is with the Emperor's new clothes in the eponymous tale by my illustrious compatriot, where the Emperor was, indeed, wearing nothing, but the costume, God had made for Adam!

 

[Just1more]

The werckhauserie is the only Laelia I’ve grown in the past. I wish I still had it!! Your bloom is lovely

 

[dodidoki]

Rudolph, thank you for your interesting, historical post. I think if we want to put these plants, cattleyas into the same group, we must exclude bifoliate cattleyas, sophros, hadrolaelias, and all cattleyas would look similar, unifoliate, labiata-like species. Eg. purpurata is a cattleya, sophro coccinea is a cattleya, velutina remained a cattleya. If you have a look at these taxons, can t imagine that all belong the same genera.

 

[Guldal]

Rudolph, thank you for your interesting, historical post.

I know, that Rudolf and I have a tendency to send in stereo, but this time round it's actually Jens speaking!

.... Eg. purpurata is a cattleya, sophro coccinea is a cattleya, velutina remained a cattleya. If you have a look at these taxons, can t imagine that all belong the same genera.

I share your scepticism when it comes to Sophronitis, and think it would be difficult on morphological grounds to uphold, that they share the features of the larger-growing, Brazilian Cattleyas, what pseudobulbs, inflorescence, etc. pertain?
I still think one should be cautious to base the distinction between genera on a single morphological trait, such as the number of pollinias, especially when other features point in another direction. If using like criteria in respect to other genera, you would certainly get into trouble, e.g. if you took staminodal shape as a distinguishing feature, you might, I would imagine, encounter some difficulty in placing Paph. rothschildianum within the same genus as Paph. rungsurianum and canhii!

 

[DrLeslieEe]

I know, that Rudolf and I have a tendency to send in stereo, but this time round it's actually Jens speaking!

I share your scepticism when it comes to Sophronitis, and think it would be difficult on morphological grounds to uphold, that they share the features of the larger-growing, Brazilian Cattleyas, what pseudobulbs, inflorescence, etc. pertain?
I still think one should be cautious to base the distinction between genera on a single morphological trait, such as the number of pollinias, especially when other features point in another direction. If using like criteria in respect to other genera, you would certainly get into trouble, e.g. if you took staminodal shape as a distinguishing feature, you might, I would imagine, encounter some difficulty in placing Paph. rothschildianum within the same genus as Paph. rungsurianum and canhii!

Wait, one trait of a white lip changed everything lol.

Are you changing your tune my dear Jens lol?!

 

[dodidoki]

I dont want to stand against any professional taxonomist or genetics, I only wrote my opinion. I think, older taxonomical standards were more understendable, clearer, than the new one, based on so called dna analysis, lost in the mist.

 

[dodidoki]

Jens , excuse me for fault, I will try to memorise names....

 

[DrLeslieEe]

I dont want to stand against any professional taxonomist or genetics, I only wrote my opinion. I think, older taxonomical standards were more understendable, clearer, than the new one, based on so called dna analysis, lost in the mist.

No Istvan, stand calmly your ground on your beliefs and experience! You have every right to your belief system based on your defendable logic on your observations and known facts.

Remember when the world thought the earth was flat?? Same thing haha.

There’s always two sides of the story.

In fact, my recent chat with a cattleya taxonomist has an opinion that is similar to yours.

 

[Guldal]

I dont want to stand against any professional taxonomist or genetics, I only wrote my opinion. I think, older taxonomical standards were more understendable, clearer, than the new one, based on so called dna analysis, lost in the mist.

My point, that might somehow have gotten lost in the fog of my longwinded argument, was that DNA-analysis at present can only play a (small) part in classification, but as the Chadwicks point out, there are other features pointing purpurata to be placed within Cattleya!

 

[dodidoki]

It is an exciting argument, we can call anyhow a creature of God or nature, we can see the same, somehow we call it. In my mind it is a laelia, i will note in my future posts, that recently it is a cattleya. ( if only further dna analysis will prove that it is really a dendrobium, hoya, grass, garlic, lattice, hen, monkey, donkey or my wife etc.)

 

[Guldal]

... recently it is a cattleya...

Recently, ay, and long time before (1852: Antoine Charles Lemaire as Cattleya brysiana; 1854: Beer as Cattleya purpurata)

( if only further dna analysis will prove that it is really a dendrobium, hoya, grass, garlic, lattice, hen, monkey, donkey or my wife etc.)

This utterance, dripping with barely veiled sarcasm, calls for yet an other airing of a favourite quote of mine from The Bard: "What's in a name,? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet."

 

[eds]

The Poet:

Perhaps it gets lost in translation Jens, but you mean The Bard - it's an archaic word for poet but only really used in English to reference Shakespeare now.

 

[Guldal]

F

Perhaps it gets lost in translation Jens, but you mean The Bard - it's an archaic word for poet but only really used in English to reference Shakespeare now.

Thank you, Ed. I've revised my post accordingly!

 

[Ozpaph]

well, lovely flower.....