Paphiopedilum leucochilum ‘Blackest Knight’ AM/AOS

[Tom-DE]

Regardless of what the true ID might be, it truly is a beauty. Personally, I really love the deep color and flower form. Congrats!

 

[Guldal]

So to answer you Rudolf, if you’re a lumper you say all are godefroyaes but those with white lips are var/fm leucochilums. If you’re a splitter, you will maintain till you die that this comes from a leucochilum line and will remain a leucochilum no matter what pouch color shows.

Does that answer your question?

As Rudolf and I always respond in stereo on this matter, I would say, no, it doesn't answer the question. But your response certainly shows, that logical argument is in favour of the lumpers in this case:

On top of that, the DNA of both will likely show 95% or more of the same, that all known markers will likely be identical. Proving once and for all it’s the same species.

By applying Ockham's razor we would have to acknowledge, that the correct designation of all these plants is 'godefroyae' on the species level.
The designation for the colourform 'leucochilum' - if used at all - is applicable only for individual plants, showing the trait, the all white, outside lip (cf. Rudolf's post about fma. albums, where he points to the fact, that it makes no sense to talk about an album-breeding line for offspring of album-parents, that present themselves with anthocyanin pigmentation in the flower. Here the individuality argument of course is negatively implied, i.e. which individual plants do not belong to the colourform).
The most logical consequence of the above seems to me to be to revise the description of the species, so P. godefroyae entails both plants with spotted and outside unspotted lips.
If in need to maintain a designation for, what I think Leslie would call, a leucochilum-breedingline, this would be on horticultural grounds, and the epithet a horticultural one: P. leucochilum (Hort.).

 

[Tony]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but the fact that leucochilum is recognized as a species based on an inconsistent color form while anitum is lumped into adductum boggles my mind. Is someone at Kew just tossing coins to decide if they accept a species or not?

In any case it's a great plant and a well deserved award.

 

[Guldal]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but the fact that leucochilum is recognized as a species based on an inconsistent color form while anitum is lumped into adductum boggles my mind. Is someone at Kew just tossing coins to decide if they accept a species or not?

I couldn't agree more - with the anitum-adductum controversy being another pet-issue of mine, siding all along with you (damn it, the features of anitum even breed through in hybrid crosses, e.g. WBW vs JB). Due to the practice of the AOC (Australian Orchid Council) relegating every well-documented Wössner Blaclk Wings into Johanna Burkhardt, we can forget about keeping track of breeding lines here.
And pertaining KEW, in some cases, they, rather than tossing coins, seem to have completely lost their marbles!

 

[Tony]

I couldn't agree more - with the anitum-adductum controversy being another pet-issue of mine, siding all along with you (damn it, the features of anitum even breed through in hybrid crosses, e.g. WBW vs JB). Due to the practice of the AOC (Australian Orchid Council) relegating every well-documented Wössner Blaclk Wings into Johanna Burkhardt, we can forget about keeping track of breeding lines here.
And pertaining KEW, in some cases, they, rather than tossing coins, seems to have completely lost their marbles!

This bit, from an AOS judge no less, cracked me up when I first saw it

The AOS has been going back into the award record and synonymizing WBW with JB, but other anitum hybrids like Hsinying Anita still stand separately from their adductum counterpart. I refuse to change my labels and so far my judging center has continued to accept anitum crosses as labeled.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

As Rudolf and I always respond in stereo on this matter, I would say, no, it doesn't answer the question. But your response certainly shows, that logical argument is in favour of the lumpers in this case:

By applying Ockham's razor we would have to acknowledge, that the correct designation of all these plants is 'godefroyae' on the species level.
The designation for the colourform 'leucochilum' - if used at all - is applicable only for individual plants, showing the trait, the all white, outside lip (cf. Rudolf's post about fma. albums, where he points to the fact, that it makes no sense to talk about an album-breeding line for offspring of album-parents, that present themselves with anthocyanin pigmentation in the flower. Here the individuality argument of course is negatively implied, i.e. which individual plants do not belong to the colourform).
The most logical consequence of the above seems to me to be to revise the description of the species, so P. godefroyae entails both plants with spotted and outside unspotted lips.
If in need to maintain a designation for, what I think Leslie would call, a leucochilum-breedingline, this would be on horticultural grounds, and the epithet a horticultural one: P. leucochilum (Hort.).

Let me explain in more detail my thinking.

In actuality, the discovered population of leucochilum miles away from known godefroyae started a taxonomic race wars between two factions of slipper scientists to either split or lump. The initial agreed statement of facts pointed to relegating leucochilums as a variety or var. since the it was ecocline with herbarium sample. However they noted that not all leuco has solid white pouches and many have various states of spotting.

Of course the splitters stated to select parent with pure white lips to line bred and got more same. Any that didn’t show pure white pouch were discarded. When this systemic termination of tainted pouches were gone, the leuco line was stabilized and accepted as pure species.

Another group decided to use leucos with darker spotting and reticulations to breed for intense petal coloration. These selected unfortunately had more markings of pouches. And as each subsequent generation increases the dark tepal coloration, selected specifically for tepal black traits with most missing pure white pouches. This allowed the few pouch spots in those dark flower appear in various amounts. The best two blacks selected for darkest coverage always inherited inadvertently their spotted pouch came along as well.

Now the rumor is that somewhere along the line an introgression occurred with a bellatulum to contribute the darker markings and reticulation. This is hard to prove as only the breeders and those who actually witness the cross is at best a murky memory or convo at best.

Xavier has seen Thai breeder containminated with S Gratix and bellatulum lines. Only the look alike godefroyaes or leucos were continued, rest destroyed or sold as Gratrx etc. That may explain the introgression if that was the case. But there is no solid proof if that’s what they did and who saw what. Could be hearsay or the truth.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

While on that WBW and JB controversy, what do you guys think it it??


Any potential? NS 24.5

 

[Tony]

While on that WBW and JB controversy, what do you guys think it it??

View attachment 39466View attachment 39467View attachment 39468View attachment 39469
Any potential? NS 24.5

Is that a WBW or a Haur Jih Anita? Unusually roths dominated if it is a WBW, and the staminode is odd the way it juts forward. Not a bad flower at all, sepals look a bit small but good color and petal width. I'd be inclined to grow it for another bloom cycle or two to see what it can do.

 

[GuRu]

The issue is that godefroyaes and leucochilums are separated ONLY by one physical trait, a white lip. Which if you think about it is quite silly because a selfing of a pure leuco will produce some with pigmented pouches.

On top of that, the DNA of both will likely show 95% or more of the same, that all known markers will likely be identical. Proving once and for all it’s the same species.

So to answer you Rudolf, if you’re a lumper you say all are godefroyaes but those with white lips are var/fm leucochilums. If you’re a splitter, you will maintain till you die that this comes from a leucochilum line and will remain a leucochilum no matter what pouch color shows.

Does that answer your question?

Leslie, to say it frankly your argumentation neighter convices me nor it answers my problem.
With your argumentation here the fact of beeing line-breeded seems to be more important than traits of the plant. Furthermore who guarantees you that within this line-breeding everything was correct and no P. godefroyae was someday one of the parentage ?
KEW Science accepts Paph. leucochilum as true species and they refer to follow H. Koopowitz in accepting this name based on an article of H. Koopowitz (Koopowitz, H. (2012). An updated, annotated checklist of the genus Paphiopedilum. Orchid Digest 76: 178-215.) Unfortunately there isn't online access to this article so maybe some of our US or Canadian friends may help us out with it ?
If there is one trait an unspotted pouch ...............??
H. Koopowitz spoke regarding P. leucochilum always of plants with a unspotted pouch and wrote alraedy in his book 'Tropical Slipper Orchids' (2008)
and I cite :
"The clear-pouched forms of this species were recognized very early as a distinct variety, Paph. godefroyae var. leucochilum, by Rolfe in 1894. They were elevated to species status as Paph. leucochilum by Jack Fowlie in 1975, but Phillip Cribb (1998) noted that the original type specimen of Paph. godefroyae had a pure white unspotted labellum, so he lumped all of these plants into Paph. godefroyae. For horticulture reasons, it is reasonable to maintain the clear-pouched plants as Paph. godefroyae var. leucochilum"

 

[GuRu]

As Rudolf and I always respond in stereo on this matter, I would say, no, it doesn't answer the question. But your response certainly shows, that logical argument is in favour of the lumpers in this case:.....

Like always Jens....together side by side

 

[Happypaphy7]

Is that a WBW or a Haur Jih Anita? Unusually roths dominated if it is a WBW, and the staminode is odd the way it juts forward. Not a bad flower at all, sepals look a bit small but good color and petal width. I'd be inclined to grow it for another bloom cycle or two to see what it can do.

I'd bet on Haur Jih Anita. Before I saw your comment, upon seeing the photos, I thought it was a roth primary backcrossed to roth.

 

[Tony]

I'd bet on Haur Jih Anita. Before I saw your comment, upon seeing the photos, I thought it was a roth primary backcrossed to roth.

Fred Clarke did do an F2 cross so if it is one of those I could see some tending more toward roth or anitum, I'm curious what the tag says the exact parentage is.

 

[Paph Paradise]

Great job, I just saw it posted on the AOS fb feed, I jumped back here to get the details. No FCC? What do you need to get to 90 for this species?

Well done. Beautiful plant.

Wanted to ask, the live sphagnum moss and large pot. Is that what you are really growing it in or is this just for aesthetics?

I always try to stay positive at the judging table. That said, don't be overwhelmed by color. It is 40 points on the Paphiopedilum scale, not all 100.
The form is nowhere near FCC quality. There are awarded leucochilum that don't have hooded dorsal sepals, so those set the standard. The pouch form is terrible, especially now that I see that last photo. 2.5/5 for pouch form, 14/20 for general form (because the pouch is so distracting), 7.5/10 for sepals and 3.5/10 for petals. That's 27.5/40 on my scorecard before I get to color. Already 12.5 points gone and no FCC.
The color is very impressive but we can't get 'wowed' by it and forget the rest of the score card. Perhaps it will bloom better in the future and get upgraded.
Dave

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Leslie, to say it frankly your argumentation neighter convices me nor it doesn't answer my problem.
With your argumentation here the fact of beeing line-breeded seems to be more important than traits of the plant. Furthermore who guarantees you that within this line-breeding everything was correct and no P. godefroyae was someday one of the parentage ?
KEW Science accepts Paph. leucochilum as true species and they refer to follow H. Koopowitz in accepting this name based on an article of H. Koopowitz (Koopowitz, H. (2012). An updated, annotated checklist of the genus Paphiopedilum. Orchid Digest 76: 178-215.) Unfortunately there isn't online access to this article so maybe some of our US or Canadian friends may help us out with it ?
If there is one trait an unspotted pouch ...............??
H. Koopowitz spoke regarding P. leucochilum always of plants with a unspotted pouch and wrote alraedy in his book 'Tropical Slipper Orchids' (2008)
and I cite :
"The clear-pouched forms of this species were recognized very early as a distinct variety, Paph. godefroyae var. leucochilum, by Rolfe in 1894. They were elevated to species status as Paph. leucochilum by Jack Fowlie in 1975, but Phillip Cribb (1998) noted that the original type specimen of Paph. godefroyae had a pure white unspotted labellum, so he lumped all of these plants into Paph. godefroyae. For horticulture reasons, it is reasonable to maintain the clear-pouched plants as Paph. godefroyae var. leucochilum"

No one can tell if any mix was done in these black leucochilums unless you’re there as the actual hybridizer and witness. It’s easy to discuss semantics and theory from a picture and some book references but the truth is beyond our pay grade lol.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

I always try to stay positive at the judging table. That said, don't be overwhelmed by color. It is 40 points on the Paphiopedilum scale, not all 100.
The form is nowhere near FCC quality. There are awarded leucochilum that don't have hooded dorsal sepals, so those set the standard. The pouch form is terrible, especially now that I see that last photo. 2.5/5 for pouch form, 14/20 for general form (because the pouch is so distracting), 7.5/10 for sepals and 3.5/10 for petals. That's 27.5/40 on my scorecard before I get to color. Already 12.5 points gone and no FCC.
The color is very impressive but we can't get 'wowed' by it and forget the rest of the score card. Perhaps it will bloom better in the future and get upgraded.
Dave

Thanks Dave for the objective assessment. There is definitely room for improvement. Both the dorsal and pouch can definitely be better.

My previous scoring was on the wrong scale (I used General scale vs the Paphiopedilum scale), so I’ll redo here to compare:

Of the 40 points for FCC form, it must score 36/40. In reality 17.5/20 for dorsal hooding, slight flower cupping and pouch rim wonkiness. Dorsal sepal 4/5, petals 5/5, pouch 3.5/5, totaling 30/40.

The FCC color must be 36/40 range. Here the pouch color reduced to 4/5, general color 19/20, dorsal 9/10, petals 5/5, totaling 37/40.

For FCC size it must score 9/10 (here 9/10), stem 4/5 (here 4/5) and substance/texture 5/5 (5/5 here). Final total 18/20 vs FCC 18/20.

The final total of 85 points is a fair assessment from breaking down of each of the parts qualitatively. That’s why I’m happy with this solid score because many components were in the FCC category. An improvement in the flowering next season may address those issues, namely the pouch shape and dorsal hooding.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Is that a WBW or a Haur Jih Anita? Unusually roths dominated if it is a WBW, and the staminode is odd the way it juts forward. Not a bad flower at all, sepals look a bit small but good color and petal width. I'd be inclined to grow it for another bloom cycle or two to see what it can do.

It’s a WBW apparently… I never seen ones holding the petals so horizontally. The Anita also has pendulous petals, so doesn’t seem to fit too?

I’ll get exact parentage and the sibling pic from the seller.

 

[annica.jarvela]

Congrats Leslie, well-deserved price! Absolutely amazing flower and especially the dark coloring. I understand the reasoning behind scoring, and that`s true that the color and form are FCC-worthy. Otherwise, as you said the rim of the pouch is a bit wonky. I so love these plants! It could be the same kind of breeding as my godefroyae black x black. I wish it will look at least a little bit like yours, but I try not to get my hopes up. It should look something like that, but it has not opened yet. It`s getting there, but it will take perhaps two or three days.
I`m happy for you and the whole plant is beautiful. Good luck!

BTW, I don`t know if you remember anymore, but when I made my introduction here at ST, you said welcome to NATO, and then, Oops!... Well, now you don`t have to say Oops anymore, it happened officially today. Finland is now a member of NATO. So, thank you again.

 

[Justin]

While on that WBW and JB controversy, what do you guys think it it??

View attachment 39466View attachment 39467View attachment 39468View attachment 39469
Any potential? NS 24.5

May just be the lighting, but I have never seen WBH or JB with such a red lip.

 

[Ray]

BTW, I don`t know if you remember anymore, but when I made my introduction here at ST, you said welcome to NATO, and then, Oops!... Well, now you don`t have to say Oops anymore, it happened officially today. Finland is now a member of NATO. So, thank you again.

April 4 is steeped in history.

1949 - NATO charter signed and organization has life.
1952 - I was born.
1968 - Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated
2023 - Finland joins NATO, Donald Trump arraigned.

At least they were mostly good things.

 

[annica.jarvela]

Thank you Ray!