Paph. wolterianum

[bulolo]

Here is Paph. wolterianum in bloom currently.
Paph. wolterianum by Brent Tucker, on Flickr
Paph. wolterianum by Brent Tucker, on Flickr
Paph. wolterianum by Brent Tucker, on Flickr

 

[troy]

Hybrid? It looks very commanding, very good blooming!!!

 

[NYEric]

No, a species like bullenianum, or hainanense.

 

[troy]

Can you post a picture of the plant, I really like yur walterianum

 

[abax]

I really like that staminode.

 

[SlipperKing]

Looks like a very typical appletonianum to me. A very nice one though.

 

[Bjorn]

Another nice member of the bullenianum-lookalike swarm that has or has not different names based on small differences.
I do collect these however, mostly for their beautiful foliage, which can differ quite a lot. The flowers however......I am not good at seing tiny differenses in staminode etc.:rollhappy:

 

[quietaustralian]

Nice Paph appletonianum !

I just wrote this quick note tonight about Paph wolterianum and Paph appletonianum in the Slipper Orchid Australia Facebook group (link to note below).

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204903595864521&set=pcb.1035770133150450

 

[NYEric]

I can open it but then it says I must log into Faceshnook!

 

[quietaustralian]

Cypripedium appletonianum & Cypripedium wolterianum

Sorry Eric, Here you go. The scans of the original documents are in the file section of the link provided.

Cypripedium appletonianum was published in 1893 and Cypripedium wolterianum in 1895, if published today they would of course be published as Paphiopedilums.
The difference between these taxa was that P. wolterianum had a projection from the staminode, see attached detail from scan of Reichenbach, H.G., Arnott, G.A.W., Xenia Orchidacea, vol. 3: t. 282 (1900).
Kraenzlin described and published Cyp. wolterianum having only one plant " a very poor one" flowered in the collection of M.T Wolter. No word of a batch of these plants with a strange staminode, just "one poor" plant.
When Kraenzlin published Cyp. wolterianum (1895) he doesn't mention the projection from the staminode , only writing " the staminode however, shows such a peculiar feature and is dissimilar to this organ in any other Cypripedium...".
It's not until the publication of Xenia Orchidacea,1900 (see detail in drawing) that we see Kraenzlin's drawing of the staminode. Criibb (1998) suggests that Kraenzlin published Cyp. wolterianum "in apparent ignorance of the existence of P. appletonianum and P. bullenianum...".
I suggest that Kraenzlin published an abnormal P. appletonianum as Paphiopedilum wolterianum. Remembering that there was “one” plant and it was a very “poor” one.
There is no doubt about the status of Paphiopedilum wolterianum, it is a synonym of Paphiopedilum appletonianum, as is the hybrid Paphiopedilum Phnom Penh.
To argue that a particular plant is Paphiopedilum wolterianum, one would need to produce a plant that matched the appearance of Paphiopedilum appletonianum but has a projection from the staminode. ***The projection from the staminode is the defining feature.***
The full description of Cypripedium wolterianum can be found in the file section of this group as can the plate depicting Cypripedium wolterianum from Xenia Orchidacea, vol. 3: t. 282 (1900)
Plate:
Cypripedium wolterianum Kraenzl., Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 17: 166 (1895).
Reichenbach, H.G., Arnott, G.A.W., Xenia Orchidacea, vol. 3: t. 282 (1900)
www.facebook.com/groups/AustralianSlipperOrchids

 

[NYEric]

Thanks for the info. Yay for Lumpers!

 

[Ozpaph]

so this one is appletonianum, then?

 

[SlipperKing]

so this one is appletonianum, then?

Yes and soon to be a double flowered one...extra nice feature.

 

[Happypaphy7]

So the size of the plant and colors of the leaves do not matter??
I thought one was always much smaller and light in leaf color.

 

[troy]

I can't even beleive somebody would think appletonium and wolterianum would even be related they are so different!!!!! Foliage, color, shape, staminode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! O.m.g.!!!!!

 

[Happypaphy7]

Actually many people do.
And I think they look pretty much the same.
Only the plants themselves seem to look quite different.

 

[quietaustralian]

So the size of the plant and colors of the leaves do not matter??
I thought one was always much smaller and light in leaf color.

The author described a plant that resembles Paph appletonianum, later a picture was published in Xenia Orchidacea that shows what anyone would recognise as Paph appletonianum but the staminode is very distinctive.

I can't find any evidence that there was ever any more than the one plant and as Kränzlin mentions the plant was in poor condition I think it is reasonable to suggest that the plant he described had a deformed staminode.

I don't believe anyone today has a Paph wolterianum but as I previously mentioned, to qualify as Paph wolterianum the bloom would need to have a very distinct staminode with a projection. I'd be keen to hear from anyone with conflicting information.

The attached image is that by Kränzlin in Xenia Orchidacea. Detail of the staminode can be better seen in my previous post.

 

[Happypaphy7]

Thanks.
True, unless the different staminode is found consistently to be qualified as a distinct feature.

Or is it a possibility that the "original" plant described was a deformed clone with such hook on the staminode?
Or were there a while population of them found with the same feature?


What about the plant, though?
Seems like there are ones with larger plant size and darker leaves and different markings.
Are these then now considered just a variation within the same species?

 

[troy]

I can't even beleive they are in the same subsection, when you need a magnifying glass to differentiate one from the other.......

 

[bulolo]

Here's a pic of the plant. Disregard the water spots and cinnamon dust.
I bought the plant from Woodstream last year.
Paph wolterianum plant by Brent Tucker, on Flickr