According to Braem et al. (2016) Paphiopedilum roebbelenii differs from typical phillippinenses "in having narrower leaves, by the higher density of the hairs on the peduncle, and by the lack of green markings on the staminodal shield. Furthermore, the petals of P. phillippinense are spreading and mostly untwisted or slightly twisted, while in P. roebbelenii they are longer, pendent, and very twisted" (p. 495).What are the main differences between Paph. philippinense and Paph. philippinense var. roebelenii?
Thank you very much Guldal for your very detailed answer!Acvor
According to Braem et al. (2016) Paphiopedilum roebbelenii differs from typical phillippinenses "in having narrower leaves, by the higher density of the hairs on the peduncle, and by the lack of green markings on the staminodal shield. Furthermore, the petals of P. phillippinense are spreading and mostly untwisted or slightly twisted, while in P. roebbelenii they are longer, pendent, and very je twisted" (p. 495).
Some authors see roebbelenii as a good species in itself, others as a variety of phillippinense. Braem somehow treads a middle road by describing roebbelenii at species level, but placed within, what he has coined "The paphiopedilum philippinense complex" (p. 490).
The plant was named by Reichenbach fil. in honour of plantcollector Carl Röbbelen in 1883. Reichenbach originally spelled the name as P. röbbelenii (or more precise Cypripedium röbbelenii as Paphs first later were transferred to their own genus).
As the German letters 'ö' and 'ä' (which also apply to, for example, the Danish 'æ, ø and å') do not exist in Latin, Reichenbach's spelling, according to the rules of botanical nomenclatura has to be corrected to the proper Latin form P. roebbelenii (i.e. 'oe' for 'ö' , double-'b' and only a single 'l').
Enter your email address to join: