which phil?

[emydura]

Horticulturists (orchidists) have a more lucid view, because in nearly all cases they are viewing living plants rather than dead, damaged, dried, centuries old (in many cases) specimens that have been "interpreted" by some chair-bound taxonomist who never saw the living specimen.

I think that when we divide species by their differences, rather than lump them according to a few of the same particulars, we only seek to confuse the issue not enlighten it. Confusion limits intelligent discourse, enlightenment expands it. Sorry Leo, there is a lot of "nonsense" coming from taxonomic quarters, as it always has been the case. Those of us who actually get out into the field learn the difference.

It is horticulturalists that want to divide everything based on superficial differences, not taxonomists. Phillipinense is a case in point. Taxonomists are lumping this group based on there similarities. I have a few of these different forms of phillipinense and I am more drawn to the similarities than the differences. I agree it is important to recognise these forms from a horticultural point of view as some have more desirable traits in which we want to breed with. But that doesn't mean they should be recognised scientifically.

David

 

[Rick]

It is horticulturalists that want to divide everything based on superficial differences, not taxonomists. Phillipinense is a case in point. Taxonomists are lumping this group based on there similarities. I have a few of these different forms of phillipinense and I am more drawn to the similarities than the differences. I agree it is important to recognise these forms from a horticultural point of view as some have more desirable traits in which we want to breed with. But that doesn't mean they should be recognised scientifically.

David

I think there's plenty of room to complain to both groups David. Who's idea was it to split esquirolei off of hirsutisumum, or the bazillion species of appletonianum look-alike s.

I think you could find something in the general population of human genome that would produce an array of lumping and splitting thought process (not just for naming orchids) that are probably the source of major marital conflict world wide.

 

[goldenrose]

:clap: :rollhappy:
I didn't expect this response, very interesting!
I'm not planning on changing the tag, maybe I'll add 'Midget'!
I was hoping to maybe find the source with the PO510 (nursery/grower using PO?) and the cultivar names, thought it might ring a bell to someone or by chance seeing Blake was one of us, he could have gotten the plant from someone here!

 

[smartie2000]

I agree with David, I'd say it were horticulturalists or horticultural-scientists that are creating so many species! really there is no need in science to do this and imagine if all plants were like this our floras would triple in size. But it is human nature to have things all organized

 

[McPaph]

Nice one Rose. looks great.

 

[Heather]

Rose, I'm pretty sure this was a Ratcliffe cross (I once had one as well), so maybe email Paul Phillips?

 

[Lance Birk]

You are right, David. I misspoke.

I am a splitter who thinks meaningful discussion comes when there is CLEAR understanding of the subject(s) under discussion. Horticulturists understand this, taxonomists just seem to be blind to large amounts of details we others observe.

Look at the differences between P. richardianum (first named P. lowii var. richardianum) and any one of the other lowiis. the former has 3" flowers, the latter's flowers are around 6 or more inches across. Spike habits are VERY different and the flowers are also. This is for just the first two noticeable observations one makes when encountering these. There are countless similar species to be named.

The logic escapes me as to why anyone trained in 'science' would continue to produce work that obfuscates knowledge.

Oh well, .... have they taken those laelias out of Sophronitis yet???

 

[Roy]

Follow this thread is interesting and can't disagree with what has been said. Just thought I would post this pic, which I think I've done before, of a P.philippinense I bought some time ago now and was sold as the Palawan Is form. The plant is tiny and so the flower spike, the flowers relative. This plant is in a 4 inch ( 100mm ) pot.

 

[goldenrose]

Rose, I'm pretty sure this was a Ratcliffe cross (I once had one as well), so maybe email Paul Phillips?

BINGO! Thanks Heather, here's Paul's reply-
Dear Rose,
Must confess I have been remiss regarding looking at Slippertalk of late. Just so much else going on!!
Yes that is one of our numbers. We had a lot of variations of P. philippinense breeding plants during our time in Florida.
Some dark, some light, some big, some small.
We started a line of compact growers that we wanted to put into our "Pygmy" programme. We have flowered quite a number here at our UK nursery and certainly, like yours they are "small".
We have found thet the flower count seems to be poor 'tho this may be due to young plants.
Further to the above "Select" had fairly small flowers with straight petals whilst "Christiana" was not unlike a roebellinii form with twisted petals.
Please tell all the Slipper Forum Gang I miss them and will try to get back in touch soon
regards
Paul (BB)

 

[goldenrose]

Update!

3 & final flower finally opened!

 

[KyushuCalanthe]

Whatever it is, it is a stunner Rose! I love the yellow lip contrasting with the petals and dorsal. Fantastic!