The Charles clone is an old one. I'm thinking/wondering if this clone was Charles "Doc" Emerson's plant. If so, that would make it 30+ years ago. Many paphs had different names back then.Nice one ...KEW Science lists Paph. amabile as synonym to Paphiopedilum bullenianum var. bullenianum
This is the P. amabile that I got from Sam. It doesn’t look anything like this one.Ok, so I looked up the flower and minimal description in Burke's first edition. It fits perfectly with his flower picture and non existence description for amabile. He clearly is a splitter and the book is 30+ years old. He claims the species was found on one mountain top but predicted it would be on others. He wasn't able to look more areas for the species and if anyone else has visited this area it hasn't been documented that I know of. So modern day man is still left with a mess in the bull and apple complex! We may never know the lineage.
I love this group of paphiopedilums, but separating them out is a daunting task. The leaves of Sam’s amabile are distinctive from most other appletonianum types that I have seen. Orchids Ltd. called this type true amabile. I do not know how they arrived at this conclusion.My comments posted above in #14 were based on a picture in Burke's book that turns out to be misleading
View attachment 38831
Now thumbing through Burke's 2nd edition he drops the concept of amabile all together and calls the plant I have robinsonii (he had robinsonii in 1st ed as well). bullenianum is still bullenianum.
View attachment 38832
Enter your email address to join: