Phalaenopsis zebrina

[mrhappyrotter]

This is a cute species that I picked up from Orchids By Hausermann earlier this summer. I like the bold red bars/stripes against the pristine white background. The flowers aren't huge, but they are bigger than I'd expected. I'm not certain of the nomenclature on this, it's my impression that there are some differing opinions and a bit of confusion so I'm sticking with what the tag says.

The flowers are fragrant, but it's not something that demands your attention. It's unique and a bit hard to describe, but it reminds me of something along the lines of melon-cucumber in nature. It's not sweet, fruity, or candy-like, and while it's not classically pretty, it's also not unpleasant.

Album: https://imgur.com/a/lIQfvHA

 

[abax]

I love small Phals. and this one has such clean markings that really
catch the eye.

 

[mrhappyrotter]

I love small Phals. and this one has such clean markings that really
catch the eye.

Yeah I'm very happy with it. Hausermann actually discounted it a bit because it was their last one and it was "damaged" Truthfully it was in near perfect condition, extremely healthy, and in bud when it arrived.This is the third round of blooms since I've had it.

 

[Guldal]

A cutie and a beautie! Such nice clean colours and clearly delineated markings...and I love the fringes on the lip.

Taxonomically, in a strict sense, it now is considered Ph. sumatrana. It has over time been called both, but the International Botanical Congress (Christenson, 1999) has conserved it as Ph. sumatrana based on the type of exactly Ph. zebrina.

But one thing is botanical taxonomy, another the vernacular... it will on my part take more than a wee bit of time to get used to the fact, that my Sedirea japonica has been transferred to Phalaenopsis as Ph. japonica (and thus robbing us of the taxonomic pun from when it was transferred from Aerides).

Kind regards,
Jens

 

[abax]

Aaaahh Jens, you've hit the nail on head. I have Phal. sumatrana and
the general confusion of new classification of all plants (particularly
orchids and cacti) keep me changing tags. I value the work of
taxonomists, but it does keep one hopping to keep up.

 

[Ozpaph]

a pretty species

 

[BrucherT]

A cutie and a beautie! Such nice clean colours and clearly delineated markings...and I love the fringes on the lip.

I grew P. sumatrana, or a plant labeled such, from Hausermann’s in the early 1990s; it looked vastly different from this white flower. It had a yellow background and brick-red hieroglyphic patterning. Was always in bloom. Hopefully it is still loving at the ISU greenhouse.

For taxonomic delight, try fungal nomenclature; I know mushrooms that have been through 4 genera in as many years.

Taxonomically, in a strict sense, it now is considered Ph. sumatrana. It has over time been called both, but the International Botanical Congress (Christenson, 1999) has conserved it as Ph. sumatrana based on the type of exactly Ph. zebrina.

But one thing is botanical taxonomy, another the vernacular... it will on my part take more than a wee bit of time to get used to the fact, that my Sedirea japonica has been transferred to Phalaenopsis as Ph. japonica (and thus robbing us of the taxonomic pun from when it was transferred from Aerides).

Kind regards,
Jens

 

[TrueNorth]

Just say "no" to taxonomy!

 

[abax]

I have a Phal. that's very similar and the name on the tag is speciosa
from Big Leaf. The red colors are variable from bloom to bloom, but
it's a champion bloomer. Mrhappyrotter, I'd love to trade keiki with
you if either of us develop one or two. Perhaps you have speciosa?

 

[Guldal]

... the general confusion of new classification of all plants (particularly
orchids and cacti) keep me changing tags. I value the work of
taxonomists, but it does keep one hopping to keep up.

Some taxonomic revisions are definately elucidating and help clear up things: no one today would probably quibble with the establishing of the genus Paphiopedilum and the transference of the relevant species from Cypripedium; nor do I think, that many would contest, that the former concept of Phal. lueddemaniana was overinclusive - containing f.ex. Ph. pulchra and Ph. hieroglyphica as variants or subspecies. To mention, but a couple of examples, where a revision were evident.

On the other hand, other revisions might be more hard to stomach: I don't know for example, if I'll ever succeed in getting used to the 'original', ca. 7-8 species of Sophronitis, being transferred to the vast genus of Cattleya?!

 

[abax]

Guldal, for a real challenge try looking into cacti reclassification.
Soooo confusing and frustrating for the amateur collector. I've
essentially given up *throwing hands up in surrender*

 

[mrhappyrotter]

I have a Phal. that's very similar and the name on the tag is speciosa
from Big Leaf. The red colors are variable from bloom to bloom, but
it's a champion bloomer. Mrhappyrotter, I'd love to trade keiki with
you if either of us develop one or two. Perhaps you have speciosa?

I have a plant labeled P. tetraspis that's just starting to open its first bloom. I suppose that's another taxonomic mine field, though, so who knows? Is it tetraspis? Is it speciosa? Only its hairdresser knows for sure.