Paph richardianum

[Dorsetman]

Cribb uses the name P.lowii var richardianum, and says "P lowii is the most widespread of the multi-flowered varieties of Paph, found throughout the Malay peninsular, Sumatra, Java, Borneo and the Celebes ( Sulawesi)."
This explains some considerable variation, and quite a large number of supposed varieties under different names. P.richardianum is one.
Per Cribb again, it differs in the deep vee notch in the front of the lip - in one of the pics I have put a piece of blue plastic inside the lip in order to show up the notch which otherwise is not easily seen. I would not call this a deep notch, but there certainly is a notch, whereas in my other P.lowiis, there is none to be seen ( from memory). The flowers are also a bit smaller - although I have to say my other lowiis are the same size as this one , whereas oher lowiis I see on show benches are a bit bigger. P. richardianum as shown in Cribbs masterwork book on paphs has a much larger pouch than this , whereas he shows (pure) lowii with a pouch otherwise like the one here - but all of this is typical of the variation you get in a species which is wide-spread.
P.lowii in all its forms is different from the other multi-flowered paphs in being epiphytic - the others are very much terrestrial, although both might be found growing lithophyticially; this may give a clue as to culture, if only I could work out what it means !

Not a happy plant this one ; it has suffered the dread slow brown rot at the base of leaves , ( all taken off of course), the only question is whether it will produce new growths before it succumbs . I shall take the spike off as soon as the other two buds open, to reduce the drain on the plant and hope to save it. After all, it has taken about 8 years to get the plant this far from the flask....

[mauraec]

I was so delighted to see a lowii in bloom, Geoff - I thought they were past blooming season (or perhaps they don't have one?). Then I saw you tagged it P. richardianum, which, as you noted, per Philip Cribb, is P. lowii var. richardianum, and I was thus immediately confused.

I looked up another P. richardianum, on this forum, that flowered in May 2011, (http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchid...rdianum-2.html), and which you commented on, because MY reference for slippers, per Harold Koopowitz, argues that P. richardianum is a separate species, to wit:



I note that in this photo, the bloom looks very much like that in Andre's post last year - although you can particularly see the notched vee far more in Andre's more mature bloom photos. I do think I've seen the same shape on a number of Pardalopetalum photos. The only other reference to P. richardianum, whether as a var. of lowii, or as a separate species, was in my reference book on slippers by Catherine Cash, which shows the following photo, captioned as a P. richardianum.




All of which, in spite of being, perhaps, a tempest in a teapot, makes me (not for the first time) question the tremendous weight given Mr. Cribb's conclusions as the last word on any orchid issue, paphiopedilums, or otherwise.

My interest in this stems from a deep preference for Paph. lowii to other Paph. species (although there are so many to admire) and I find this particular differing of minds most fascinating.

Tell me, if you would, how do you account for the differences in the identification, etcetera, of P. richardianum? Should Mr. Cribb's observations be given heavier weight?

In any event, the blooms are lovely and the photos terrific, as per usual.

[catttan]

Thanks to both of you Geoff and Maura. I find the info most interesting. I'll be looking out for all the features next time I go up to the Cameron Highlands and visit a friend who has quite a collection of local lowii including an alba form.

[AtantaR]

very nice flowers....the petals on this one looks different to me, then the other pictures of this variant....hmmmmm

[Dorsetman]

I was so delighted to see a lowii in bloom, Geoff - I thought they were past blooming season (or perhaps they don't have one?). Then I saw you tagged it P. richardianum, which, as you noted, per Philip Cribb, is P. lowii var. richardianum, and I was thus immediately confused.

I looked up another P. richardianum, on this forum, that flowered in May 2011, (http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchid...rdianum-2.html), and which you commented on, because MY reference for slippers, per Harold Koopowitz, argues that P. richardianum is a separate species, to wit:



I note that in this photo, the bloom looks very much like that in Andre's post last year - although you can particularly see the notched vee far more in Andre's more mature bloom photos. I do think I've seen the same shape on a number of Pardalopetalum photos. The only other reference to P. richardianum, whether as a var. of lowii, or as a separate species, was in my reference book on slippers by Catherine Cash, which shows the following photo, captioned as a P. richardianum.




All of which, in spite of being, perhaps, a tempest in a teapot, makes me (not for the first time) question the tremendous weight given Mr. Cribb's conclusions as the last word on any orchid issue, paphiopedilums, or otherwise.

My interest in this stems from a deep preference for Paph. lowii to other Paph. species (although there are so many to admire) and I find this particular differing of minds most fascinating.

Tell me, if you would, how do you account for the differences in the identification, etcetera, of P. richardianum? Should Mr. Cribb's observations be given heavier weight?

In any event, the blooms are lovely and the photos terrific, as per usual.

Harold is a very experienced paph man, but questions about whether a plant is a true example of the species or a variation, or a sub-species etc., are matters of opinion.
Phil Crib does have the benefit of sitting and working in the Royal Botanic Garden Herbarium ( his official title is Keeper of the Herbarium – or maybe was since he retired at 60 but then carried on working as a Consultant, – how I wish I worked for the Government ! ) and RBG Kew has been there a very long time – several hundred years, receiving specimens, accumulating them in the records, as well as actually growing examples in their 60 or so greenhouses. Those records are in many cases the original collections by people like Low, Roebling, Forrest etc, as well as ones sent in by ex0plorers and collectors over the centuries ( I have even contributed plants myself, from my own tiny little collecting expeditions ). So for any one species, Cribb can go and look at many herbaria sheets, and compare them. As well as that when writing any of his books or publications ( numbering hundreds ) he asks to borrow herbaria sheets from other major institutions around the world – and the most significant ones for orchid history are probably all fairly local and easy European ones – Berlin, Paris, Leipzig etc. In most cases he has looked at dozens, even hundreds of different examples, before expressing his views .This makes his opinions very weighty indeed in my eyes.

[Michael Saar]

At present, the Kew monocot list accepts Paph. lowii var. richardianum as correct.

[larissamueller]

good

[mauraec]

Harold is a very experienced paph man, but questions about whether a plant is a true example of the species or a variation, or a sub-species etc., are matters of opinion.
Phil Crib does have the benefit of sitting and working in the Royal Botanic Garden Herbarium ( his official title is Keeper of the Herbarium – or maybe was since he retired at 60 but then carried on working as a Consultant, – how I wish I worked for the Government ! ) and RBG Kew has been there a very long time – several hundred years, receiving specimens, accumulating them in the records, as well as actually growing examples in their 60 or so greenhouses. Those records are in many cases the original collections by people like Low, Roebling, Forrest etc, as well as ones sent in by ex0plorers and collectors over the centuries ( I have even contributed plants myself, from my own tiny little collecting expeditions ). So for any one species, Cribb can go and look at many herbaria sheets, and compare them. As well as that when writing any of his books or publications ( numbering hundreds ) he asks to borrow herbaria sheets from other major institutions around the world – and the most significant ones for orchid history are probably all fairly local and easy European ones – Berlin, Paris, Leipzig etc. In most cases he has looked at dozens, even hundreds of different examples, before expressing his views .This makes his opinions very weighty indeed in my eyes.

I wonder if Cribb identified the P. lowii var. richardianum from herbarium specimens, or if he has actually found or seen one growing. I understand that Kew's official stance is that there is a lowii var. called richardianum - I don't question that. My confusion stems a bit more from the dissimilarity between the photos of the various representative blooms we have before us.

[Brutal_Dreamer]

Love the interesting discussion. Great slipper orchid, Geoff.

cheers,
BD