Victoria-regina or chamberlainianum??

[paphioboy]

Can anyone please clarify whether paph victoria-regina and chamberlainianum are the same species? i have often read that both names are synonymous... but if they are, then how come hybrids made with chamberlainianum and hybrids made with victoria-regina are named differently? i've read somewhere that the flowers of both species are very similar but one has mottled leaves while the other doesn't...is this true?

 

[Ernie]

Ah. Long, on-going discussion. I think most folks consider them synonymous with victoria-regina being the correct name (by priority). BUT I'm no orchid taxonomist. Any professional opinions???

-Ernie

 

[likespaphs]

it's all about who got the name in first, i think.
i like the sound of chamberlainianum more than victoria-regina so i call it chamberlainianum

 

[Rick]

Its definitely more a matter of history rather than science.

And its switched back and forth which is why the hybrids have different names listed. (Depending on the year and inclination of the breeder when the cross was made.)

They are the same plant.

 

[slippertalker]

They are the same plant and the taxonomists have switched back and forth for various reasons. Unfortunately, the RHS registration system has also switched back and forth, although if you see either name used it is the same plant.

 

[SlipperFan]

I think the official name right now is chamberlainianum:
http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/index.html

 

[Rick]

I think the official name right now is chamberlainianum:
http://www.slipperorchids.info/paphdatasheets/index.html

The source you are quoting says it is "unclear", and is choosing to use the oldest (but not completely documented) source from 1892. It also notes that Braem uses chamberlianum and Cribb uses vitoria-regina

It's still in contention as far as I know.

 

[paphioboy]

ok, thanks... but if it is the same plant with 2 different names, then when hybrids are made with it, which name do we use? since there should be only one official hybrid name...??

 

[Roy]

I dont think it matters what name you use. Either name would be acceptable. The RHS would sort it out ( maybe ) when the cross is registered. The Registration books are so mixed up now with incorrect parent names, one more won't hirt..

 

[Leo Schordje]

We did this only a few weeks ago. The only name the RHS is currently accepting is victoria-regina. If a registration is submitted as chamberlainianum and has not been previously register, it will be published with victoria-regina listed as the parent. At least this was true 3 months ago the last time I checked. See reading room at www.ladyslipper.com for more exhaustive table comparing names.

 

[Jon in SW Ohio]

To add to the confusion, I've read that victoria-reginae is like glanduliferum in that both are out of cultivation and those in cultivation do not match the original description so they would be chamberlainianum and praestans.

I have not checked the original description for victoria-reginae, so I can't say if it is correct.

Jon

 

[Rick]

To add to the confusion, I've read that victoria-reginae is like glanduliferum in that both are out of cultivation and those in cultivation do not match the original description so they would be chamberlainianum and praestans.

I have not checked the original description for victoria-reginae, so I can't say if it is correct.

Jon

What is "out of cultivation"?

 

[Jon in SW Ohio]

It's a nice way of saying the plant was discovered, described, and not seen since. A couple orchids still go by names that were given to other plants that have not been seen since publishing.

It's like calling a Paph. rothschildianum a Paph. elliotianum...some taxonomists have decided they are synonymous, others have said the one is a distinct species that is "out of cultivation".

Jon

 

[Bob Wellenstein]

Paph. victoria-reginae and chamberlainianum were both "described" in consecutive issues of Gardener's Chronicles ib advertisements by Sanders for an incoming shipment of plants to be auctioned. He had not seen the plants or flowers in person. It has been surmised that it became politically expedient for him to name a plant after Chamberlain, so he named the same plant twice and then just stated that the first plants died in transit. If this is true then the first naming, V-R stands as correct. I far prefer chamberlainianum, and felt that assuming Sanders did this without hard evidence simply based on his history of similar deceits was improper and chamberlainianum should stand. The last time I saw Phil Cribb I made this case, and he said he too preferred chamberlainianum, but that they had evidence in Sanders archived letters and journals written by Sanders himself that he had one plant and two names. As a result V-R stands as the first description (advertisements such as this were grandfathered in as valid descriptions when the code of botanical nomenclature was formalized). As far as I know no credible (and even some incredible and uncredible) taxonomist believes that the two names are anything but synonyms. Why the registrar still accepts both is a puzzle, I pointed this out to the previous registrar ten years ago.

 

[likespaphs]

Paph. victoria-reginae and chamberlainianum were both "described" in consecutive issues of Gardener's Chronicles ... V-M ...

you mean v-r, right?
i thought i had seen something about victoria-reginae and victoria-mariae having the names reversed or something like that. there is the possibility that my mind fabricated that though....

 

[NYEric]

Argh!! This is so frustrating! I'll stick to besseae.

 

[Bob Wellenstein]

Yes, I meant v-r instead of v-m, I'll see if I can edit it!

 

[likespaphs]

cool. thanks.
am i imagining the v-r v-m name issue?
i like that the original drawing had three flowers illustrated even though they typically only hold two...

 

[Roy]

Dont get confused. To my knowledge and observations, victoria-mariae is totally different in all respects to v-r or chamber'.