Not SUPERBIENS!......
Wonder no more. Its a separate species.
Please. Please. Please self.
Hopefully Rudolf this issue will finally be laid to rest in a publication in the near future. Dr. Harold Koopowitz saw the REAL SUPERBIENS at our local society meeting a few years ago (pre SARS). He was floored by the plant and flower. We had a nice conversation andRick, I won't argue about this lovely flower and its impressive dark colouration.
But I'm not so sure with this statement....and if Eric's post wasn't fun....we are two.
At least not for Kew Science, they list it as synonym to Paph. superbiens
Hopefully Rudolf this issue will finally be laid to rest in a publication in the near future. Dr. Harold Koopowitz saw the REAL SUPERBIENS at our local society meeting a few years ago (pre SARS). He was floored by the plant and flower. We had nice conversation and
I forwarded my pics to him. There has been at least one other posting on the net of a real superbiens by a private hobbyist.
Somebody has got to write an article, "The Rediscovery of Paph superbiens ". Dr Jack Fowlie wrote rediscoveres all the time.
Rick, don't get me wrong, I also see differences between these two plants. I'm no expert enough whether they shoulb be classified as two varieties or two species. I only wanted to point that your shown flower looks very close to var. superbiens in the book of H. Koopowitz and also what I know as var. superbiens.Harold's book, which I have, predates the rediscovery of superbiens so IMHO all the written material will need to be redone. If the experts see to do so, time will tell. I see enough differences between the two flora to separate them as distinct species. Everyone has their own opinion and rightly so.
After my conversation with Dr Koopowitz I'm under the impression he sees two distinct species as well. From your link above it appears Olaf has the same opinion of two species. I personally have no confusion over these two.
Enter your email address to join: