Pleurothallis cypripedioides

Pretty!

 

What an interesting plant! Brings to mind the ctenochasmatic pterousaurid Pterodaustro.

 

I believe this is Pleurothallis trichostoma. The plant looks identical to Pthl. cypripedioides but the flower is different(color, size and dorsal...)

 

I think that's a massive understatement. It's a good thing the flowers are too difficult for most people to pollinate, otherwise there'd be a number of hybrids out there mislabeled as species.

 

Pthl. trichostoma is an accepted species and officially described. There is no confusing matter among this group(hairy toilet bowl flower) IMO. If you have cypripedioides and trichostoma in front of you, you can see the differences very easily. How many of those species so far? 3? 4 for the most? Pthl. amparoana is totally different(plant and flower/flower presentation).

What other species has similar flower or growth? Just curious. I love hairy plants(leaf or flower).

 

Tom, I agree that the descriptions are crystal clear--it's the plants that are confused.
--Lisa

 

Lisa, looking at the live materials side by side, the plants(cypripedioides and trichostoma) look quite identical indeed(if that is the confusing part) but the flowers are significantly different..., unless you are saying the plants in collections or on the market are somehow misidentified.

Here are my plants for comparison/discussion: (The one with white hairs is labeled as cypripedioides)

 

Is it possible that someone made a hybrid of these two species? It is quite possible.

 

Given that I believe these are all coming from Ecuagenera--yes, sadly, anything is possible.

In any case, while your photos are always stunning and these are no exception, they don't show what one really needs for a determination--the interior bits and pieces.
There are two ways to fix this. If you have the patience, the photographic talent and equipment of Marni, you can do a dissection and photograph the results and share that. Or you can send a specimen, which is usually more satisfactory because it allows one to examine any angle that might be interesting. I would hesitate to label any of this group, or, in fact, many other things, without more information that's hard to get short of a specimen--you are braver than I am. I just wouldn't do it.

My earlier response was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, although certainly it did contain an element of that. Sometimes things that seem clear when you examine two or three plants are no longer clear after you examine more.

 

I still remember when a plethora of "new" Dracula species turned out to be the product of unabashedly promiscuous flies that couldn't find a fungus smell or "horny' (he he he) protusion they would not explore.

 

Now, you are talking about big shoes to fill..., I'll pass that!

It seems no one here including you knows for sure if those plants are actually mislabeled, so I am going to remain "brave" to call my plants as what the labels say. They do look different to me for sure..., Or we can always lump them into something like we did for Pthl. grobyi, can't we?

FYI, I am not saying it is 100% correct, AOS Species ID Task Force identified one trichostoma as cypripedioides last year or so, but this year they changed that back to trichostoma. Perhaps they've got help from a taxonomist this time.