Leucochilum 'Choy Pau'

[NYEric]

Mike, which person contributing to the nice article from Dr. Tanaka's site wrote the description of leuchochilum and is now changing the description from "pure white lip"?!?

 

[Drorchid]

The question is must the distinction between leuco and gode be all or nothing? If the speckling is an additive trait (e.g. height in humans), it is like asking where do you draw the distinction between tall and short? 170cm? 180cm? What is the cut-off point? My previous opinions, as I have already stated, were based on the assumption that line-breeding was carried out using wild leucochilum to start with. It would be interesting to hear from people who actually breed leucochilum and see if they did get spotted-pouched offspring from a selfing or sibling cross of 2 leucos.

In my opinion both godefroyae and leuchochilum are one and the same species, but just different color forms within one highly variable species. To me "having a spotted pouch" versus having a "white pouch" is a "Qualitative trait" either they have "spots" or they have "NO spots" on the pouch; so yes, it should be ALL or Nothing...

From talking to Frank Smith, who has been line breeding Paph. leuchochilum for years, the answer is yes, after 4 or 5 generations of line breeding of Paph. leuchochilum, when he sibbed two "pure" leuchochilum's that had absolutely no spots on the pouch, in his offspring in the next generation he would find a few seedlings that had some spots...I think it is because he kept breeding for darker flowers, and eventually some of the pigments would come through into the pouch as well.. To me the fact that some of the "leuchochilum" plants would revert back to the "godefroyae" type is proof that we are dealing with one and the same species. Even in the article shown in Dr. Tanaka's website, in an area were they find Paph. leuchochilum, some of the so called "wild leuchochilum's" were in-fact Paph. godefroyae (with spots on the pouch)..

To me, the best solution to this problem of variety or species of leuchochilum vs a regular godefroyae, is to reduce the variety or species of leuchochilum to "forma leuchochilum". A form of a plant species usually refers to a different color form (think of besseae forma flavum versus the regular colored besseae). Plants that have flowers with spots on the pouch should be Paph. godefroyae and plants with pure white pouches should be Paph. godefroyae forma leuchochilum. So with the example of Frank Smith's breeding even though the parents were Paph. godefroyae forma leuchochilum, some of the offspring were plain Paph. godefroyae (with spots) and some were Paph. godefroyae forma leuchochilum (with white pouches). The same would be true if I would sib two Phrag. besseae plants that were made by crossing besseae forma flavum x a regular besseae. in the second generation you would get 25% besseae forma flavum and 75% regular besseae.

I think doing it this way, will get rid of a lot of confusion...it is pure and easy, just call a godefroyae that has spots: Paph. godefroyae, and a plant that has a pure white pouch: Paph. godefroyae f. leuchochilum.

Robert

 

[Drorchid]

Mike, that only proves they have found a flower with spots on the pouch, not that its a 'pure' (whatever that means) leucochilum.
Personally (with no real basis for the opinion) I would accept a few spots as still being leuco.
Does anyone have the original taxonomic description (in English)???

From Braem & Chiron's Paphiopedilum book, they also consider leuchochilum to be a form of Paph. godefroyae:

Paphiopedilum godefroyae forma leuchochilum (Rolfe) Braem & Chiron, comb. et stat. nov.

This variety is probably best understood with the help of text from the Masters publication (loc. cit.): "A flower of this handsome and distinct variety is sent by R.I. Measures, Esq., of Camberwell, with the remark that its sepals and petals, in their broadly ovate form and rich maroon-purple markings, resemble more nearly C. bellatulum. It indeed goes to prove that it is a very fine line of demarcation which separates some extreme forms of these species. But in the present case the clear creamy-white unspotted face of the labellum is a characteristic feature of this variety. The staminode and the interior of the pouch are profusely spotted with purple, but the prominent part of the lip is altogether unspotted." The name of this form refers to the immaculate whtie lip. (Braem and Chiron, 2003).

Robert

 

[SlipperFan]

If it is just a color variation, why would it be a form?

 

[MaryPientka]

Beautiful!

 

[paphioboy]

From talking to Frank Smith, who has been line breeding Paph. leuchochilum for years, the answer is yes, after a 4 or 5 generations of line breeding of Paph. leuchochilum, when he sibbed two "pure" leuchochilum's that had absolutely no spots on the pouch, in his offspring in the next generation he would find a few seedlings that had some spots...I think it is because he kept breeding for darker flowers, and eventually some of the pigments would come through into the pouch as well.. To me the fact that some of the "leuchochilum" plants would revert back to the "godefroyae" type is proof that we are dealing with one and the same species. Even in the article shown in Dr. Tanaka's website, in an area were they find Paph. leuchochilum, some of the so called "wild leuchochilum's" were in-fact Paph. godefroyae (with spots on the pouch)..

Thank you, Robert. This proves the point I was trying to get across.

 

[Stone]

Mike, that only proves they have found a flower with spots on the pouch, not that its a 'pure' (whatever that means) leucochilum.
Personally (with no real basis for the opinion) I would accept a few spots as still being leuco.
Does anyone have the original taxonomic description (in English)???

I think (and I'm by no means an expert) that the fact that some leucos (or godyfroyae var leuco if you prefer ...I don't) has some specimens with a pure white lip has nothing to do with determining that its a leuco as apposed to a godyfroyae.
It's arediculous notion really. What would you call a leucochilum with 3 spots on the lip? what about 1 spot? 2? 5?/ godys are found on the east coast of the peninsula around the Birds nest Islands. The petals are mostly spotted not streaked as in leuco. Leucochilum comes from the west coast in the Gulf of Krabi. They are seperated by what looks like many hundreds of miles. They are obviously 2 different and stable populations. Now if you accept that you must also accept the there are no intermediates in the mountains between them and that they are distinct. east coast...godys, west coast leucos. After that the markings cannot or should not enter into the discussion. We need to accept that any lable we put on our cultivated plants is possibly inaccurate because of the interbreeding done by humans.
If you have a look at Birk's book, page 45 clearly shows 2 clones of leucos. One with spots and one without (mainly) They are completely different to godyfroyae on page 43. ( he has actually dug them up and also refers to the different root system) Obviously 2 species to me but you cannot use lip spots to seperate them.

 

[Stone]

Mike, which person contributing to the nice article from Dr. Tanaka's site wrote the description of leuchochilum and is now changing the description from "pure white lip"?!?

IMO the original decription is wrong. How can you throw a couple of plants on some botanist's desk and ask them to differentiate without all the other relevent data? As far as I know you rarely if ever have a ''botanical'' variety of a species growing with the species itself. It is usually geographically seperated. If ''leuco'' and ''godys'' are the same species then you cannot call leuco a varitey if it grows and flowers together with the other but a ''form'' at most. But if I assume that most so called leucochilum growing in their west coast habitats, have some spots on the pouch, it tells me that the immaculate lip leuco is a white lipped form of leucochilum (and should be really called Paphiopedilum leucochilum forma labella immaculata or some crap like that) and that an immaculate lipped godyfroyae (if there is such a thing) is a form of godyfroyae.
If you accept the original description, that means that there are leucos (species or variety) growing mixed with godys on the west coast and possibly in the east as well. I don't think so but maybe I'm wrong????.

 

[SlipperKing]

Holy Crap! One would have to question the species/hybrid status of that first PIC you post of a different owner.

 

[Drorchid]

If it is just a color variation, why would it be a form?

That is the definition of a "form" it is usually a plant type found in nature, that differs from the regular type, just by one characteristic, and usually it is a different color form. It can either be different than the regular form by having different flowers or different foliage (like a red leafed type versus a green leafed type, you can call the red leafed type forma rubra). Often you will find both forms growing together in the same population. A good example would be if you find a colony of Cyp. acuale in the woods. Most of them will be pink, but you may find one or two plants that will be white; those will be a different form: Cyp. acuale forma album.

A botanical "variety" refers more to a whole population. A variety will have multiple characteristics that are different than the regular type (it can be different colored flowers, different shaped flowers, and a different plant habit, like shorter more compact plants). Usually a variety is geographically isolated from the rest of the species. Varieties are often found on isolated mountain tops, or on islands. All the plants within the population are considered the same variety..


Robert

 

[NYEric]

Thank you, Robert. This proves the point I was trying to get across.

So, the plants you posted as leuchochillum come from the population of leuchochilum as opposed to the population of godefroyaes?

 

[Drorchid]

IMO the original decription is wrong. How can you throw a couple of plants on some botanist's desk and ask them to differentiate without all the other relevent data? As far as I know you rarely if ever have a ''botanical'' variety of a species growing with the species itself. It is usually geographically seperated. If ''leuco'' and ''godys'' are the same species then you cannot call leuco a varitey if it grows and flowers together with the other but a ''form'' at most. But if I assume that most so called leucochilum growing in their west coast habitats, have some spots on the pouch, it tells me that the immaculate lip leuco is a white lipped form of leucochilum (and should be really called Paphiopedilum leucochilum forma labella immaculata or some crap like that) and that an immaculate lipped godyfroyae (if there is such a thing) is a form of godyfroyae.
If you accept the original description, that means that there are leucos (species or variety) growing mixed with godys on the west coast and possibly in the east as well. I don't think so but maybe I'm wrong????.

I agree that we are dealing with two separate populations of Paph. godefroyae. To me it seems that the plants growing on the West Coast (that some people refer to Paph. leuchochilum) have more plants that have white pouches compared to the East Coast population, but in both populations you will find plants that have spotted pouches. The question is, are the two populations distinct enough to warrant the variety status for the West Coast plants. IF so, they need to have more than one characteristic that makes them look different.

If you randomly grab 10 plants from both populations (some with spotted pouches, some without) and mix them all together, will the botanist be able to pick out the 10 plants the belong to the West Coast population, and 10 plants that belong to the East Coast population. If the answer is "yes", than I would be inclined to call the West Coast population "variety" leuchochilum (in my opinion the differences are not large enough to warrant a different species). On the other hand if the answer in "no", and he can only pick out the few plant that have no spots on the pouches, but to the botanist eye the other plants that have spots all look the same, I would refer to both populations as one and the same species: Paph. godefroyae. The few plants that look different (as they don't have spots on the pouch) I would refer to as "forma" leuchochilum.

Robert

 

[NYEric]

My point was that the definition of Paph leuchochilum states "white pouch"; and that's basically what sets it apart from Paph. godefroyae. If, for some reason, he wants his plant to be a leuchochilum, then so be it. However, if I was judging the plant, based on the description I would pass it because it does not match the description and could not be judged against Paphs with white pouches that are called leuchochilums.

 

[SlipperFan]

Thanks for the description of form, Robert. What I found confusing was that progeny of white pouches could have spotted pouches, but that the white pouch would still be a form. I think I have it now.

 

[Stone]

My point was that the definition of Paph leuchochilum states "white pouch"; and that's basically what sets it apart from Paph. godefroyae. If, for some reason, he wants his plant to be a leuchochilum, then so be it. However, if I was judging the plant, based on the description I would pass it because it does not match the description and could not be judged against Paphs with white pouches that are called leuchochilums.

And you would be correct in doing so because we really should go by the published description until it is rectified. But does not necessarily make it right. So many orchids fall into this catagory eg Catt pumila/spectabilis; harpophylla/kautskyana; Dend bigibbum/phalaenopsis; Phalaenopsis amabilis complex etc. All have been shown and awarded with the wrong name. Paphioboys plant looks closer to a godyfroyae to me where as the second one in post #19 I would call leucochilum.

 

[Ozpaph]

My point was that the definition of Paph leuchochilum states "white pouch"; and that's basically what sets it apart from Paph. godefroyae. If, for some reason, he wants his plant to be a leuchochilum, then so be it. However, if I was judging the plant, based on the description I would pass it because it does not match the description and could not be judged against Paphs with white pouches that are called leuchochilums.

That's how I'd be thinking, too.