Paphiopedilum trantuanii

[pierre63]

i hope we can see your bloom :wink:

 

[SlipperKing]

Defenitely no trantuanii but a nice henryanum as Sanderianum said.

 

[quietaustralian]

P trantuanii

This thread was started some time ago but the question still remains unanswered. Has Paph trantuanii been recognised as a species? I have some plants that were sold as trantuanii but have yet to flower them. I have only seen one picture of the plants in bloom and that is the one shown in a previous post. Even in Vietnam there is a little controversy about this plant.

 

[quietaustralian]

Paph. trantuanii

I bloomed about 100 last year like that, found out he ordered at that very same time henryanum from Ha Giang, not Son La, so of course they bloomed out as henryanums. He sold coccineum under that name too.

In the early days of trantuanii, the colony has been collected out in a matter of days, I still have some plants from that collection here. Most of it was offered at prices too high to be sold, in the 30-50usd/growth so they just slowly died in Hanoi at the seller's place.

All the sellers in Hanoi are totally unable to keep a paph alive more than 2 months...

Sanderianum. Have you flowered your trantuanii plants? Some pics would be great if anyone has any. The only pic I have seen is the one that pops up elsewhere on the net and originated with Tuan Anh himself. Only 1 picture on the net, makes me wonder.

Regards, Mick

 

[callosum]

interested paph

 

[quietaustralian]

I thought I'd give this thread a bump.

Has anyone seen anymore pics of this plant? Has anyone bloomed it?

I have seen some plants for sale but they look like henryanums to me.

 

[quietaustralian]

bump!

 

[baodai]

I purchased 2kg from Mr. Trần Tuấn himself, it turned out henryanum. Waste time and space
regards,
BD

 

[Braem]

Thank you Emydura, so I believe trantuanii is this :

That's cool, I like it. Here is a photo of my plant. It has already four growth, each one of decent size, so hopefully I'll be able to post pics of flowers in a close future :

The top plant may well photographed in the wild ... it is very close to Paph. henryanum Braem from what I can see, but the staminodal shield is not quite visible.

Whatever plant that is at the bottom, it seems like a plant from cultivation .... that would indicate that it is a hybrid .... but all this is ... guesswork. So I suggest you ask whoever sold the plant

 

[quietaustralian]

I finally found that this plants wasn't described as a new species, it was described as a natural hybrid.

Does anyone have a link to the original description or a pdf of it?

Paphiopedilum × trantuanhii Gogniat & Loubr., Swiss Orchid Soc. Bull. 1: 2 (2008).

Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

Recognition

No, this plant is not recognized as a separate species by anyone who is serious about Paphiopedilum ...

 

[Braem]

This thread was started some time ago but the question still remains unanswered. Has Paph trantuanii been recognised as a species? I have some plants that were sold as trantuanii but have yet to flower them. I have only seen one picture of the plants in bloom and that is the one shown in a previous post. Even in Vietnam there is a little controversy about this plant.

The problem is that the Vietnamese (just as the Chinese. the Brazilians and some others) describe plants from their country notwithstanding the fact that they have been described before. That procedure is nothing new and can be traced back to the 18th and 19 century when the English described plants that were described by the French and vice versa. I refrain to state whether this is pure ignorance or simple stupidity ... but it causes chaos ... On the other hand, it brings money to those who sell the plant as a separate species.

 

[quietaustralian]

It appears Averyanov named this as Paphiopedilum × aspersum Aver., Komarovia 2: 17 (2002), he then changed to Paphiopedilum barbigerum var. aspersum (Aver.) Aver., Turczaninowia 11(1): 72 (2008) and then back to × aspersum.

I'd be keen to get a link too or pdf of Paphiopedilum × aspersum Aver., Komarovia 2: 17 (2002), as well as the description of x trantuananhii

Regards, Mick

 

[quietaustralian]

The problem is that the Vietnamese (just as the Chinese. the Brazilians and some others) describe plants from their country notwithstanding the fact that they have been described before. That procedure is nothing new and can be traced back to the 18th and 19 century when the English described plants that were described by the French and vice versa. I refrain to state whether this is pure ignorance or simple stupidity ... but it causes chaos ... On the other hand, it brings money to those who sell the plant as a separate species.

I agree

Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

bump!

Well Eric Hansen had to give his book some dramatic "highlights". Many people mistake "opinionated" for "knowledgeable" ... and I honesty don't understand the rest of the quote.

I admit that I have not seen the publication from the Swiss Orchid Soc. Bull. but if the plant corresponds to that photo posted earlier, I would have a problem considering it anything else as P. henryanum.

I have just called Switzerland to get a copy of the pub. ... I will comment as soon as I have it.

 

[Braem]

I finally found that this plants wasn't described as a new species, it was described as a natural hybrid.

Does anyone have a link to the original description or a pdf of it?

Paphiopedilum × trantuanhii Gogniat & Loubr., Swiss Orchid Soc. Bull. 1: 2 (2008).

Regards, Mick

A Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

 

[valenzino]

xAspersum

To compare to other photots around,this is a Paph.xAspersum(in my opinion),seen in bloom in a batch of plants mixed(coccineum,henrianum,tranliemianum,helenae) in malaisya nearly 10 yers ago...what do you think?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Braem]

OK Here we go with some true Taxonomy

1) The "publication" of "Paphiopedilum trantuanhii" appeared as ab Internet publication under "Selected Orchid Science" ... and is thus void and nil. The rules clearly rule out a publication on the internet (see below).

2) As I have stated in an earlier posting: The Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

Thus the name P. truantuanhi is invalid and void ...

I don't know what the authors were thinking when they published this, but at least Xavier should know that the ICBN states that electronic publications are invalid. (Article 29 of the Code). And even if there is a true publication on paper somewhere, it is also invalid as it bases on the original that was published on the web. Anything published based on an invalid name is invalid.

Now to the contents: The authors write (first page, 4th paragraph): "In September 206, one of us (Xavier ...) has been shown pictures and sample specimens of a new species ... This species has been compared with Paphiopedilum coccineum Perner & Herrmann, and Paphiopedilum henryanum G.J. Braem to which it is closely related."

Now looking at the picture in the web "publication" one can indeed argue that this plant could be a hybrid between coccineum and henryanum or better between barbigerum and henryanum. ... But as the plants come from a nursery, one can also "think" that this may be a man-made hybrid.

In any case, the flower of the web publication do NOT correspond to the flowers shown on the habitat picture posted in this thread....

Maybe now some people will start to understand why I always claim that "taxonomy should be left to taxonomists".

 

[quietaustralian]

A Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

Paphiopedilum × trantuanhii Gogniat & Loubr., Swiss Orchid Soc. Bull. 1: 2 (2008).
Was referenced in World checklist of selected plant names.
http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=464426
I have been searching for the original x trantuananhii and x aspersum descriptions via the net without luck. I'll have a look tomorrow at uni.

Regards, Mick

 

[Braem]

I checked with Rudolf Jenny. He has ALL orchid publications, and he confirmed that a Swiss Orchid Society Bulletin does not exist.

That it is listed by Kew does not mean anything