Paph lawrenceanum fma hyeanum

[DirGo]

With so many intermixed and wrong labeled 'maudiae' hybrids and so many lawrencianum variants in culture you can never be sure. I would have liked to see a bit more developed lip and maybe a more horseshoe staminode shape, a bit brighter green coloring to better match the old Desbois' description.
Can you share your thoughts on the correctness of the label? And please explain why you belief it's wrong or correct?

I like it and it will stay in collection whatever the verdict

edit: the verdict: valid name tag (thanks to all contributors - very nice discussions)

 

[GuRu]

In my eyes there is no need to doubt at the correctness of it's name Paph. lawrenceanum because all what you mentioned is within the normal variation of this species. I don't know whether it's only in the photo or it's real but I think to see a slight reddish hue at the end of the petals....if it is so you can argue about its state as 'album'......but nothing else. Not to forget its a wonderful flower.

 

[DirGo]

I think to see a slight reddish hue at the end of the petals..

Picture was taken yesterday evening in artificial light and probably the "further away" grow LED did that. Today in natural light it is pure green so it can keep the "albino" tag

Not to forget its a wonderful flower

Thank so much Rudolf !!!

 

[Happypaphy7]

Beautiful!! I love this species. flowers and leaves and all. I wish they were more commonly available.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Looks legit to me… nice one!

 

[DirGo]

Thanks for all replies & for confirmation of the name.

 

[SlipperKing]

I have a couple of questions before I'm convinced this is pure lawrenceanum. Is the pouch truly yellow/green or is it dark emerald green? Are there predominant warts on the bottom edge of the petals? I can see the ones on the top edge.
This is an observation, the dorsal stripping is too uniform in coloration. The few I've bloomed/ seen have strongly colored long strips divided by shorter, weaker colored strips. I took the liberty of downloading a few pics, 2
botanical drawings and 2 over the top photos which I feel good about their genealogy.

 

[DirGo]

Hi Rick, thank you very much for your extensive prework & reply!
The points you are raising were also the points for my doubt exactly.
If my flower looked more like the albino photo you posted I would have been 100% convinced.

Here are my considerations:

Is the pouch truly yellow/green or is it dark emerald green?

It is more yellow green and I was hoping for "bright olive-green" as described by Desbois
Considering the intense dark color of the regular type, we could indeed expect darker green remaining when the red is absent.
But as far as I know intensity of color is no disqualifying factor for forma nor species

Are there predominant warts on the bottom edge of the petals? I can see the ones on the top edge.

When diagnosing the species we look for warts on both upper and lower margins and for minimal recurved petals. But when the original albino is described by Desbois he only speaks about warts on the upper margin. Also your 'perfect hyeanum' photo has no predominant warts on lower margin as far as I can see.

This is an observation, the dorsal stripping is too uniform in coloration.
The few I've bloomed/ seen have strongly colored long strips divided by shorter, weaker colored strips.

I can only fully agree with that statement, my flower really 'looks different' but is this enough for disqualification? I would have loved if my plant had those as well for sure.

In conclusion I have come full circle back to my first sentence of the post...
Unless you pick up the plant from nature (which I would never do) then you can never be really sure what you get and specially in the area of albino 'maudiae' types it becomes very messy...
I think I should keep the name tag, but not use this one for any propagations.

Also my sincere thanks to all who replied before! Great interaction - love it !!!

 

[GuRu]

............In conclusion I have come full circle back to my first sentence of the post...
Unless you pick up the plant from nature (which I would never do) then you can never be really sure what you get and specially in the area of albino 'maudiae' types it becomes very messy...
I think I should keep the name tag, but not use this one for any propagations.......

I read your and Rick's posts very closely and I was the first one who posted in this thread as a 'lumper'. Even after reading your detalled described points of doubt I'm convinced your conclusion is right to keep the name on the tag.
I attach a scan of the pages (123 and 126) referring to this species of the book of Olaf Gruss "Genus Paphiopedilum Albino Forms" (I'm sure Olaf gives permission) to show the variability of this species. After Olaf as an taxonomist published these fotos in his book the probability of all photos show a true species is very high but maybe not 100%.

 

[DirGo]

Even after reading your detalled described points of doubt I'm convinced your conclusion is right to keep the name on the tag.

Thanks Rudolf, the flower variations in these scans are convincing. As suggested before I will keep the tag Paph lawrenceanum fma hyeanum

As you know, I recently started posting but already I love slippertalk so much!
In my humble opinion no other slipper forum or FB group can compete. The combined member expertise and the willingness to document replies in a very scientific way and share them with respect to everybody is just amazing. I was not looking for "flashy-gif-replies" like you see in other places but for real useful information; and I found that here!!!

Special thanks to Rudolf, Happypaphy7, Leslie & Rick for all replies to my questions above.
Also thanks to Karp60, merc, Duck Slipper, JayeL, Guru, Phragnewbie021 for their reactions.
Dirk

 

[Ozpaph]

I understand 'Hyeanum' isnt a specific cultivar but a name that is applied to all 'albino' forms of lawrenceanum, (unless there was only ever one 'albino' form and all are divisions - unlikely), so there will be some variation.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Dirgo, if there was any doubt re your ID, consider this flower below. It is my flower from a division of a select plant from Orchids Limited, Paph. lawrenceanum fm. hyeanum 'Evergreen'.

You can see it has all the warts along the superior margin of the petals, as well as a couple along the bottom inferior margin. Both of which one expects in this species color form.

Yet....

Many believe that the other portions of the flowers did not confirm to the accepted 'callosum' look of the species (as beautifully presented by your flower). Comments like 'the dorsal is too big' and petals are too 'short and downwards' are all signs of inexperienced growers. In fact, one of the first paintings of this color form almost a century ago had a jungle flower that flowered exactly like this.

So until one does the research of all possible variations of this form, with all the possible permutations of the genotypes and therefore phenotypes, it would be hard pressed to deny the plant of that named privilege.

 

[DirGo]

... it would be hard pressed to deny the plant of that named privilege.

Thank you very much for that !

Also, you have a lovely flower there with a nice green color !

 

[Ozpaph]

thats different

 

[Guldal]

You can see it has all the warts along the superior margin of the petals, as well as a couple along the bottom inferior margin. Both of which one expects in this species color form.

Those who claim, that DirGo's flower is without warts at the bottom margin of the petals, haven't examined the flower properly!
There is a wart on the bottom margin of the left petal. In the first photo, where the flower is seen from the front, you see it vaguely (from the point of the viewer: on the petal at your right hand side). You see it much more clearly in the second photo (from the point of the viewer: on the bottom of the petal at your left hand side!).
So this feature is there - and you can't in your diagnosis of the plant discard its species status, due to this!

 

[SlipperKing]

Here's another one just posted on FB
https://m.facebook.com/groups/197725380919846/permalink/847864842572560/