Coelogyne sp.

Hi Adam! It looks like Coelogyne massangeana, which is now called C. tomentosa.

 

Yes, that is Coelogyne tomentosa. Many people also have it in their collections under the other old name of C. dayana.

 

nice form? with bit thinner sepals, and more brown on the outer sides and appex of a lip, flower pedicel looks shorter or it has bigger flowers as well... but not as many of them as usual in tomentosa I've seen... Overal very nice!

 

This is Coelogyne swaniana.

 

for sure not sp swaniana lip is complately different...

 

No, the lip is the same. The lip is quite different in 3 dimensions of a live flower compared to drawings made from flattened lips. See the color photograph in the monograph of the section - Orchid Monographs 6: pl. 4a. 1992.

 

With all respect can't not agree more.

I don't have book you mantioned, but I have Clyton Coelogyne -Synopsis, with pictures and drawings and it is huge difference in front of a lip between those two, tomentosa has exactly like on a plant here pictured with a lots going on it, but swaniana much less on it as here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21117187@N06/3220214915/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kikkertje/3494095417/
even unusual form is different, one of picture of Comber showing similar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/94277684@N00/4687104379/

here by Peter O'Byrne:
http://orchid.unibas.ch/phpMyHerbarium/184255/1/Coelogyne/swaniana/Rolfe_Robert_Allen/specimen.php

same plants with name Coelogyne swaniana occurs in Books:
Orchids of Sarawak by Beaman and Wood 2001,
Orchids of Sumatra by Comber 2001

and painting from reichenbachii 1894:
http://orchid.unibas.ch/phpMyHerbar...e/swaniana/Rolfe_Robert_Allen/img/307871m.jpg

So this is on million % not swaniana

 

I am not going to argue with you. You haven't seen the scientific monograph by the expert n the genus Ed de Vogel but you are a "million %" certain you are correct because of color pictures on the internet.

 

1894: it is a bit before Mr Vogel isn't? and some pictures linked by me are made, and books written by similar known botanist...

 

It is Dr. de Vogel. Nobody you cite is an expert on Coelogyne. Offer evidence that anyone you cite has reconstituted and studied flowers of the holotype of C. swaniana. So to answer you = No, nobody you cite is a "similar iknow botanist". Piss off.

 

just to come back to topic, this is not about how dr de Vogel is great, becuse he his and I know this no doubts about it!! This is about picture which showing Coelogyne , which is not swaniana...

 

He is great but under no circumstances are you about to look at his monograph. Piss off.

 

I probably shouldn't jump into this because I for sure don't know sh*t about orchid taxonomy, but... oke:

Any chance this is an intermediate form, either a natural hybrid or perhaps an ancestral or parallel population to either of the aforementioned two species? Regardless of how well-documented the types of these species are it's impossible to account for all the variation possible within a population, and shifts in floral morphology can occur rather quickly in isolated populations through pollinator interactions and sexual selection. Even using molecular analysis exact degrees of relationship are difficult to determine with any great certainty.

Adam, do you have any info on the locale this was originally collected from? Could be of value in establishing or ruling out a likely ID using previously-documented distribution data.

Y'all feel free to tell me to shut up anytime.

--Nat

 

swaniana was described rom a cultivated plant said to come from the Philippines but that locality has been doubted.

Just as species like Bulbophyllum lobbii show great variation based on geographic isolation throughout its range (genetic drift), this is likely in swaniana and other Coelogynes. But the application of the name is based on the type specimen (= see de Vogel) and not secondary information like images on the internet. Defiantly refusing to look at primary information while insisting that de Vogel is full of crap because he wasn't alive in 1894 is just plain odd behavior.

 

I get your point re: relevance of sources and I really appreciate your information, it's always educational.

I guess part of what I was driving at is that the species concept frequently seems to break down when describing orchid populations, particularly because of the relatively easy interbreeding we see even in the wild. If pollinators and chromosomes don't present barriers to swaniana and tomentosa interbreeding (not saying this is the case, just speculating) and if they share recent common ancestry, are they separate species based solely on morphological differences due to geographic isolation? If so, why are widely-distributed and fairly diverse species like lobbii still lumped together (if there's any reason beyond simple lack of a consistent definition of 'species')?

I know this isn't what you and piotr are disagreeing over, I'm just sort of working through my own uncertainties about orchid clades (from a mostly uneducated perspective) 'out loud.' Apologies for any glaring ignorance or irrelevance apparent within...

--Nat

 

In general botanists defer to the specialist unless they have a significant new piece of information. In the case of Bulb. lobbii the experts don't agree and one puts them all together while others recognize a number of species. In that case the problem is that horticulture needs handles for the variants so calling them all lobbii doesn't quite work unless a subspecies classification is produced that presents the same information under an umbrella lobbii.

clades and molecular systematics (= phylogeny) versus taxonomy is a different headache.

 

this plant is NOT swaniana, if intermediate form not from this sp, such lips has as well few other species...

Curtis's Botanical Magazine" vol. 124 (Ser. 3 no. 54) pl. 7602

oh... another useless source is it?, people in XIX century painted wrong named orchids for fun, NOT, they did it because they was asked to do it by serious botanic institutions...

Here Coelogyne swaniana again, what a shame is still nothing like plant pictured here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...urtis'_124_(Ser._3_no._54)_pl_7602_(1898).jpg

1894 is a year when this sp - Coel. swaniana was described nothing more or less wanted and have to say about it, and this is "primary information"!

 

"This sp is dedicated to Mr J.M. Swan, a British artist. The type specimen was supposed to come from Philippines but there is doubt about this as it is felt wrong provenance was given to Rolfe when he made his description"

this is how information may be manipulative used as interpretors on its own use, I read few lines above some different story...

I never refused to read Vogel just don't have this book, and kind of can't effort to buy it now, if somebody send me a copy I will get with pleasure familiar with it.

thank you, and wish many beautiful blooming on this extraordinary plant!

 

The Bot. Mag. plate is secondary information since it was published 4 years (1898) after the type publication (1894) and is based on a different plant, although it is considered within the variation of swaniana.

Nobody intentionally falsified illustrations and no botanical institutions ever ordered any such falsification. What utter bullshit. Clearly you have a real chip on your shoulder concering botanists.