Grateful for opinions on the identification of Cypripedium sp.

[Steve Garvie]

The following are all Cypripedium "species" that I bought from Medlock Valley Orchids.
The exploits of this company have already been discussed on another thread. Apart from failing to deliver orders the other big problem with MVO is that they frequently send out the wrong plants. At least in some cases a cheaper plant is sent out in place of one of the more expensive species whilst on other occasions I suspect that they have just sent out whatever they have most of at that point in time. I bought a number of Cyp species on one of MVO's bargain weekend special offers. I didn't receive any of the plants until I raised a Paypal dispute. I have grave doubts as to the true identity of many of the plants I subsequently received.

As an example of this an MVO "Cyp. kentuckiense" flowered some weeks back and was clearly a Cyp. fasciolatum.

The Cyp. below was bought as Cyp. calceolus which it may be. However it has rather small Cyp parviflorum-sized flowers. What do you think? Is this Cyp. calceolus?





This next Cyp was bought from MVO as Cyp. "pueblo" which I gather is the name that the company Gardenorchids applies to Cyp. parviflorum pubescens. Do you think the plant below is pubescens?




The third Cyp. was purchased as Cyp. macranthos. I've only seen a few macranthos in flower and these had darker flowers than the plant below. What do you think? A pale Cyp. macranthos or something else (franchetti)?





The final plant was bought as Cyp. tibeticum. The plant proved to be quite robust and though the flower is large it is held well above the plant's crown on a stout "stem" rather than flopping like most of the large-flowered dwarf tibeticums that I have seen. The other obvious feature is the hairy tufts on the bases of the petals and the dorsal sepal. As it matured the flower seemed to tip back somewhat elevating the dorsal sepal and tilting the pouch up slightly -this gave the flower a rather attractive appearance (2nd image below). What do you think? Is this plant a Cyp. tibeticum or something else (macranthos possibly)?



Many thanks for your thoughts on the above.

Steve

[monocotman]

Steve,

I would suggest that they all could be correct, apart from the calceolus with the spotty staminode.
That does not look right.
The pale mac could be correct - there are semi albums around that look like that.
The tibeticum looks similar to the ones from Holger.
I suggest growing them all on for another year or two and seeing how the flowers develop when the plants are well established.
Things may become clearer.

Regards,

David

[Steve Garvie]

Hi David, many thanks for your opinion on these plants.

Having looked at the Frosch Cyp website and elsewhere I think you are right -there are macranthos just like my pale plant and also robust tibeticum similar to mine.

I haven't a clue as to what the "calceolus" is however!