Cattleya dolosa alba AM/RHS

[Dorsetman]

I was a bit suspicious of this - would it be genuine ? when I ordered , as the nursery concerned is often rather way out with its labelling, although usually offering excellent plants. This one was rather shrivelled when it arrived , but has grown a better bulb for me, and produced these flowers which blow me over. Genuine - yes, it must be.
The shrivelling of the older bulbs has not gone away, but continued tlc should make it better and better.
What a lovely surprise to find this open on my first visit to the greenhouse for a week ( have been away in middle Europe, cruising the Danube )

[Chris in Hamilton]

Fabulous Geoff and so hard to get!

[Sheryl]

Wow! Very nice surprise I'm sure!

[ksriramkumar]

Wow. Good one Geoff.

[PaphMadMan]

A very satisfying x dolosa. A couple years in your good care and it will be quite impressive.

[DoreenVDT]

Wonderful flowering, good shape!

[JDT]

Stunning!

[Chris in Hamilton]

A very satisfying x dolosa. A couple years in your good care and it will be quite impressive.

So, is dolosa a confirmed hybrid? I've read that it has never been duplicated in horticulture.

[Dorsetman]

Cattleya.wikidot.com says it is now considered to be a species ; It is found in the wild, and was (past tense) believed to be a natural hybrid .
I suggest that if and when some dna analysis is done it may be thought to be included in C.walkeriana, ( which it reminds me of, very strongly) perhaps as a subspecies or variety.

[PaphMadMan]

Both Kew Checklist and The Plantlist accept it as x dolosa, presumed natural hybrid of walkeriana and loddigesii. I've never seen any explanation of in what way it has never been duplicated artificially - how the flower and plant supposedly differ. The flower of C. Heathii (1), the man-made hybrid (loddigesii x walkeriana) is visually quite similar and shows a similar range in variation of forms. It is much harder to find pictures to compare the plants. There is much that just isn't visible to compare in general photos. I don't know if it has ever been included in any genetic analysis of Cattleya phylogeny.

There are reasons why examples of a natural hybrid and a man-made hybrid from the same species may differ. The natural hybrid isn't just the first generation cross in most cases. It is whatever a swarm of crosses and back-crosses and sib-crosses originating from several or many individuals of the parent species evolves to over a number of generations. It may show many different combinations of characteristics of the parent species, and some characteristics that don't match either species or seem to be intermediate between them. It can cover every stage from the first generation cross to the emergence of a new species from the hybrid swarm. Most examples of the man-made version will be first generation, and the cross of 2 specific individuals, limiting the range of variation to what those individuals contribute. It won't have anything like the range of variations possible in the natural hybrid, and it won't have any of the new features that may evolve over many generations. Without some explanation for the "never been duplicated artificially" statement that takes all that into account I have to remain skeptical. That "never" represents at best a narrow range of observations.