This discussion turns up once and again...I will just quote two, elucidating posts from an earlier thread, that clearly shows the difference between P. curtisii and the rediscovered, 'true' P. superbiens, that had been lost to cultivation for a while. NB. You have to 'Click to expand' (lowest in the quote) to see Olaf's post in its entirety::This is no longer considered superbiens. Straight curtisii. superbiens is no longer part of this plant's name after the true superbiens was rediscovered a couple years back. I think Olaf published a comparative paper and I posted a real superbiens last year here on ST.
Your plant is really a true Paphiopedilum curtisii. Some years ago the true Paph. superbiens was found again and this Shows the clear differences to curtisii. Her eat first two different clones of curtisii
View attachment 16835
Paphiopedilum curtisii
and now the true superbiens View attachment 16836 Paphiopedilum superbiens
Here an old print of the typical Paph. superbiens
View attachment 16837
Best greetings
Olaf
I put this issue to rest a year+ ago but folks here have very short memories. View attachment 16844 View attachment 16845
This is an impressive specues that tends to flower quite long but, unfortunately, often dies off after blooming whether it sets a pod or not! I have lost two of them after flowering which is very unusual in my experience. ☹
So does this mean that my ''superbiens'' alba is probably curtisii as well? It will flower soon I think.This discussion turns up once and again...I will just quote two, elucidating posts from an earlier thread, that clearly shows the difference between P. curtisii and the rediscovered, 'true' P. superbiens, that had been lost to cultivation for a while. NB. You have to 'Click to expand' (lowest in the quote) to see Olaf's post in its entirety::
And:
So does this mean that my ''superbiens'' alba is probably curtisii as well? It will flower soon I think.
Enter your email address to join: