Paphiopedilum leucochilum ‘Double Trouble’

[Guldal]

First apologies to all who posted wonderful pictures and had their pictures focus highjacked by my/our taxonomical comments.

Dear Dirck, in this instance there is no need to prostrate yourself unduly. The owner of this thread, brought it upon himself:

It bears this moniker name since it has to be screened by our ever watchful ST leucochilum commitee .
.....
Let us wait for the verdict. If it passes those eagle eyes

And in my experience, Leslie has never been one to shy away from, neither to be offended by a stimulating discussion!

Alas, I agree, we have all (yet again) made our positions clear, and can thus peacefully keep our minds at rest, as we take our recourse to the age old adage: 'Speech is silvern, silence is golden' ("Sprechen ist silbern, Schweigen ist golden")!

To spare the blood pressure of the rest of STC-members, I might in the future contend myself with just marking my position with the tag: PTElLz!

 

[Tom-DE]

Gosh! Already? I won't apologize for quoting a few things from Lance Birk's books...I don't care if it is a variety or separate species but I am going to call mine leocochilum (even with a few spots on the lip)...and you can't stop me

Rooster, you are such an attention whore! Don't forget our curbside pickup in two weeks. I am counting on that....LOL

 

[Guldal]

Gosh! Already? I won't apologize for quoting a few things from Lance Birk's books...I don't care if it is a variety or separate species but I am going to call mine leocochilum (even with a few spots on the lip)...and you can't stop me

I can't imagine, that anyone here intends to impinge on your 1st amendment rights, Tom... and for my sake you are free to call them P. goldilocks, P. rapunzel, or whatever is most to your liking!

 

[eds]

Olaf is a bit ambivalent in my eyes. On the one hand he follows the pure white pouch proponents, e.g.
- names it Paph. godefroyae fma. leucochilum (Rolfe) Braehm&Chiron, 2003
- mentiones several time the pure white and unspotted pouch/lip...and I cite O. Gruß, Paphiopedilum Südostasiatische Frauenschuhe Band 1 (2020) p.179 ff.
"Beschreibung:
Die Farbform hat die gleiche Form und Färbung wie das Paph. godefroyae. Lediglich die Lippe zeigt keinerlei Flecken und Zeichnung.....
Desciption:
This colour form has the same shape and colouration like Paph. godefroyae. Only the lip shows no spots or markings at all ....
Verwechselungsmöglichkeiten:
Von der Normalform Paph. godefroyae unterscheidet es sich durch den reinweisen Schuh.......
Posibilities of confusing:
It distiguishes from the normal form Paph. godefroyae by its pure white shoe.....

-writes, that only L. Birk raised this plant to species status...

but shows on the other hand also few photos with more or less spotted pouches.

I didn't know it had been formerly published as forma. Glad it has as this is definitely the right level of taxonomic distinction if the only difference is the flower colour (or part of the flower colour)!

Tsk, tsk on the photos though!

As to agreement of a name, any name validly published can be used by authors and growers if they feel it meets that description. I'm not aware of a leucochilum description of any taxonomic level though that doesn't state it has a pure white pouch. Ergo any plant not showing a pure white pouch doesn't fit that description and cannot be that species / variety / form and the name, at whatever taxonomic level shouldn't be used.

This point has nothing to do with whether it is a good description or not or an appropriate distinction - it's just the rules!

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Continues chomping on popcorn with a chuckle.

 

[Tom-DE]

Continues chomping on popcorn with a chuckle.

Don't choke on it! you can't die till I get my curbside pickup.

 

[Tom-DE]

I can't imagine, that anyone here intends to impinge on your 1st amendment rights, Tom... and for my sake you are free to call them P. goldilocks, P. rapunzel, or whatever is most to your liking!

FYI, I don't feel offended by any of those discussions...although P. goldilock sounds pretty good

I am not full of s**t like...But I must say, it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it must be a duck...wait it! I saw a red feather, It must be a rooster then! Just being sarcastic here, don't get offended!
Time to watch a football game

 

[GuRu]

...I don't care if it is a variety or separate species but I am going to call mine leocochilum (even with a few spots on the lip)...and you can't stop me
......

Of course you can.....but should you ever publish a photo of you dangerous P. leocochilum here.... be aware the T.E.l.L. won't sleep, never.

 

[Ozpaph]

lovely leuco.....

 

[Tom-DE]

Of course you can.....but should you ever publish a photo of you dangerous P. leocochilum here.... be aware the T.E.l.L. won't sleep, never.

No big deal! It is just going to be a troll magnet.... hate it and love it at the same time!

BTW, good catch on the typo.

 

[Guldal]

it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it must be a duck...

Take a closer look at the prominent frontal shield, and let me know, if your "duck" might not instead be a coot?!

 

[Tom-DE]

Just throwing a bone for you, an orchid friend of mine showed me some photos of leucochilum published by OSROC/Taiwan Breeders Association?...at least half of those leucochilum photos have minor spots on the pouch.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Just throwing a bone for you, an orchid friend of mine showed me some photos of leucochilum published by OSROC/Taiwan Breeders Association?...at least half of those leucochilum photos have minor spots on the pouch

Is possible to post here to compare?

 

[Tom-DE]

Is possible to post here to compare?

I could but it might take a while. I have to go see him(a former AOS judge in bad health) again on Sunday and take a photo of photos...

 

[eds]

Just because they were called leucochilum doesn't make them so!

 

[Tom-DE]

Ed, you are full of yourself here...keep an open mind. You're not a taxonomist let alone an authority.

 

[eds]

Ed, you are full of yourself here...keep an open mind. You're not a taxonomist let alone an authority.

Excuse me?

I'm not a published taxonomist but I can read a description and follow it. All the leucochilum descriptions state a pure white pouch therefore if it doesn't have a pure white pouch it should not be called that at any taxonomic level.

As I said in an earlier post, this is not a matter of whether these are good descriptions or appropriate, it is about the plant matching the description.

And I will agree with Gruss and Wolff (2007) and others are free to agree with others but if you think it should be called something else and there is a valid description published you can use for that then go ahead.

 

[Tom-DE]

Good for you that you can read and follow...Give it time, there will be another updated description. Take a look at the history of taxonomy, it won't be the first one. Meanwhile, don't be such a narrow-minded person. You may follow Kew or your taxonomist, but how many times they were wrong...Just don't force others to follow your ideology.
Unlike some full-of-sh*t persons, I'll keep my open mind here... just saying! If I offended you in some way earlier, I will apologize here.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Everyone is entitled to have their opinions whether they follow taxonomy, Kew or themselves.

Having a healthy discussion and respecting everyone’s opinion is a good start.

Now as for myself in regards to the enigma of godefroyae/leucochilum controversy, I am of the school that a single color variation of a floral part does not warrant a species rank. If that was the case, every color variation of any species like a coerulea in Cattleyas will need to be raised to species level. That will never happen.

 

[Guldal]

In the present case I would consider us more in the realm of arguments than in the realm of opinions.

But what pertains your second point, Leslie, I can only wholeheartedly concur:

Having a healthy discussion and respecting everyone’s opinion is a good start.

Maybe with the added proviso: everyone is entitled to keep a civic and pleasant tone!