Paph phillipinense var roebellinii

[emydura]

This is an extremely attractive clone. You did well to get a division of it from your friend. Congrats on blooming it so nicely!

It cost me a bit. But worth every cent given the flowers and its vigour. I have flowered a seedling of the roebellinii cross "Grace" x "Candor Red Streamers" which seems to be a famous cross. It was nowhere near as good as the clone on this post.

David

 

[musiclovertony]

That is very gorgeous! i'm in awe!

 

[Wendy]

I love it....absolutely GORGEOUS!

 

[Pete]

if thats a roebelenii, then what is a type?

 

[JeanLux]

Thanks for the photo tips Dot and David!!!! Jean

 

[emydura]

if thats a roebelenii, then what is a type?

Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.

David

 

[SlipperKing]

Super plant David. I'd lie to see you get up to the 7-8 flower count

 

[Pete]

Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.

thats exactly what i was saying...

 

[NYEric]

Very nice for a multifloral paph! Thanx for sharing.

 

[tenman]

Not clear on the question? I'm a clumper so to me they are all just phillipinense. Most of the Paph taxonomists don't even recognise roebellenii at any level. To be honest I'd be hard pressed to differentiate between a roebellenii and a normal form of phillipinense. The differences seem so minimal and inconsistent.

David

Actually, numerous taxonomists do recognize it. The problem was with the ill-conceived notion of subsuming it into philippinense in the '80's books - the main reason being the presence of what's called a 'hybrid swarm' of intermediates between the two species, a common phenomenon in the orchid world. But for some reason in this one case someone used it as a reason to lump; similar reasoning in Cattleya would result in there only being a couple of cattleya species as most of them have these hybrid swarms, too.

Unfortunately, this ill-advised move has led to much interbreeding amongst them (roebbelenii is the source of the twisted petals, absent in true 100% phils as seen in Koopowitz's first OD checklist) to the point there are few if any pure examples left in culture now. And many collceted plants of the hybrid swarm have been passed off as the species too.

A pity. Roebbelinii is so compact, so beautiful, and blooms usually at Christmastime. It's my favorite slipper, but I don't care for philippinense at all.

 

[SlipperKing]

Here is philippinense var. philippinense. Although not a great pic it shows what my impression of the varity is from so many years ago. Found it on the website:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rainforest-orchids.co.uk/USERIMAGES/Paphiopedilum%2520philippinense%2520var%2520philippinense%2520edit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rainforest-orchids.co.uk/page33.htm&usg=__7rw7JfC_vCs1gE6AmanPgGc8tDQ=&h=675&w=900&sz=39&hl=en&start=5&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=qhLLK0UPzMPp9M:&tbnh=110&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpaphiopedilum%2Bphilippinense%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8 Petals held out at a 45 degree +/- angle and fairly untwisted.

HERE IS A SECOND ONE

 

[SlipperFan]

Thanks, Rick. It looks like my philippinense is really roebellinii.

 

[Wendy]

I have both of them and hopefully they bloom together this year...then I can post comparison shots.

 

[SlipperKing]

That sounds great Wendy. I have a Paph philippinense var. laevigatum that I haven't seen bloom in years. It almost died but has come back and is close to blooming once again. maybe I'll get to post it soon as well.

 

[rdlsreno]

Very Nice! love the picture!

Ramon

 

[emydura]

Here is my flat petalled phillipinense that flowered for me a couple of years back. I expect it will flower again for me next season.

I don't believe that only the true roebellinii has twisted petals. Phillipinense is a very widespread and variable species. Cribb states that the longer pendent petals of roebellinii is the only character which distingusihes it consistently from phillipinense. And as he states this is not sufficient to warrant species status. Cribb also has photos and drawings of phillipinense in situ and they all have twisted petals. My philippinense (laevigatum form) also has twisted petals.

David

 

[SlipperKing]

David, that's only true if you believe Cribb.

 

[Bobc]

very nice. :clap:

 

[tenman]

David, that's only true if you believe Cribb.

It's not so much that I don't believe him, it's just that looking at intermediates in the hybrid swarm and calling them philippinense doesn't show anything.

 

[valenzino]

I think the only difference is the origin of plants....roebellinii is from borneo.I've seen a lot of wild philip. and all different...some veery long twisted petaled from philippines....some short twisted petaled from borneo...is so variable....at the time was described different cause a few varieties were known...and so taxonomists can play.....