Pleione 2017

[john hodgson]

Lovely Ashley- your Sirena is strongly humilis and less forrestii, but lovely red markings. I've been growing some from bulbils and 2 have reached probable flowering size this year so you've given me something to look forward to.

[SteveC2]

I have been discussing Sirena elsewhere with Erf, the question being has anyone ever seen a Sirena clone which wasn't all humilis and no forrestii in appearance?  Any thoughts out there?

[john hodgson]

Re: Sirena with forrestii traits.
No - haven't personally seem one, but Paul's site pleione.info shows a bowlful with forrestii stamping its influence on some of the blooms. http://www.pleione.info/pleione-hybrids-gallery-s.html

[SteveC2]

So it does John!
So the next question is why those forrestiiesque clones are not widely available?  Every photo of Sirena posted by hobbyists seems to be very humilisesque.

[john hodgson]

Steve - if my Sirena does have the faintest glow of yellow, I'll post, but I don't expect it will!
Now - changing the subject...

Greetings everyone. It's not usual that I buy when I'm not totally sure of what I'm getting but once more couldn't resist something once seen. The seller lists it as pleione vietmanense. Gunther Kleinhans, in the 2003 Pleione Review (an excellent series in its day), says that P. vietmanensis is a species close to  P. reichenbachiana - and looking at the photo I can see why.

Elsewhere (P.C. : pleione.info) I read that :
1) P. vietmanensis is 'a distinct species related to P. praecox' (Cribb) ... also that ...
2) P. reichenbachiana,'is just a variant of P. praecox'. (Cribb)  ... but ...
3) Torelli regards this variant (P. vietmanensis) as sufficiently distinct to warrant varietal status and calls it P. praecox var. reichenbachiana. ... BUT ...
4) The World Checklist (1999?) regards P. vietnamensis as a valid name. So there you have it! Dead easy...

So what I'm asking is:
A) From the picture, is this P. vietmanensis, do you think? (The picture is the sellers'  and I acknowledge their copy-write, but it is poor resolution.  The photo of the the pseudo-bulb looks praecox-like.
Then it follows, if it is P. vietmanensis, then: 
B) What is the current thinking on accepted species naming? -  P. reichenbachiana ... or ... P. praecox var. reichenbachiana ... - ... P. vietmanensis ... or ... P. praecox var. vietmanensis.    I don't expect an avalanche of opinions on this one!

[john hodgson]

Oh... and for those who do grow it, do you grow P. vietmanensis (or whatever it's called) winter warm  (more than 10c) or winter cool? Do you grow it in a bark rich or moss rich medium. Thanks.

[karel_t]

John,
there is no doubt that P. vietnamensis Averianov & Cribb (1995) is the valid name. The problem can be with its identification. In last years were appeared in the trade, mainly in Germany sellers, who offer this species. Nobody is able to tell you the locality of mother plant. Some of them just tell you that their plants originate from Vietnam or they are from seeds collected in Vietnam.
For example, here is the answer from Popow: "thanks for mail i got the plants from a friend in vietnam   buz no specific provinz ore area known  best regards boscha" - Believe or not believe 

As you write P. vietnamensis is very similar to P. praecox var. reichenbachiana and I've already seen several P. praecox var. reichenbachiana offered as P. vietnamensis. So you must be very careful and always compared your plant with Averianov's description.

Your picture is very poor quality for identification.
K.

[john hodgson]

Thank you Karel - I understand all your points. I also worry about buying from European orchid suppliers. I assume that they are legitimate and professional. Perhaps I am naive.  The  truth ... could it be that this may be fueling the collection of wild stock? I hope not. I certainly don't want to encourage that. I also wonder if CITES rules are being circumvented.
I will examine the plant and flower very carefully next winter to establish identification.
I should have been more cautious. The name P. vietnamense doesn't exist, does it? 

[karel_t]

The name P. vietnamense doesn't exist, does it? 

You are right John, P. vietnamense doesn't valid.

[sjusovare]

The case of this species really puzzles me to tell the truth.
A german orchid nursery list something under the name "Pleione maculata var.: Vietnamense" ...

[john hodgson]

Julien - This doesn't make complete sense to me but it's extracted from ipni.org

Original cited type Original remarks
20004966-1 1.2 Orchidaceae. Pleione vietnamensis   spec.
Aver. & P.J.Cribb   
Gen. Pleione, ed. 2 46. 1999  Gen. Pleione, ed. 2 N 46 1999 1999                  Vietnam tax. nov.    0 0 0 0 0 0 VT 882 N.T.Hiep; H.Averyanov  Kontum Prov., Ngoc Linh Mts, borders of Kontum and Quangnam Danang Provinces, 2000-2200m 0 0 0  0 0 0  coll. Feb. 1995, fl. in cult. St Petersburg Nov. 1995  holotype   LE  ,isotype   K

I found it as a result of Karel's pointers.
At least it has useful information about where it was growing, elevation and where a specimen in cultivation was described (I presume) John

[john hodgson]

I just noticed the spelling variation in my reference.

Averyanov  not  Averianov

[Steve Garvie]

Hi John, the "vietnamensis" commercially available from some German nurseries doesn't seem to differ in flower from that of the plant I grow as Pln. Praecox var.reichenbachiana.

Here is an image of a "vietnamensis" I bought from Popow orchids in 2015:


Here is my Pln. praecox var. reichenbachiana for comparison:


I know nothing of orchid taxonomy but I struggle to accept that the plant I grow as var. reichenbachiana is simply a variant of praecox.

As regards culture I grow my plants in warm winter conditions similar to Pln. maculata. I find that new roots want to grow whilst the plant is still flowering but these new roots are prone to rotting in overly damp substrates so a predominantly bark-based mix is best.

[john hodgson]

First -  Steve, what gorgeous plants (and, as ever, fabulous photography - I do hope I can ask some photography questions at some other time).
To add to this discussion I have been doing some research tonight on the naming of P. vietnamensis. I found what appear to be original sketches and identification notes. I'm a bit confused because I believe Pleione vietnamensis was named in 1995 but these sketches are dated 1999.   (I found the files at Kew via some route I now can't find again!)

I have transcribed the handwriting which may be of help - especially to non-British readers.

Ignorance of how such work is done stops me from commenting on the sketches themselves - I dare say they serve to quickly co-illustrate the notes rather than be an accurate rendering of the look of the flower.

I do find them interesting to illustrate how the science is done - I hope it is of interest to others.

[john hodgson]

Steve
Look again at your Popov supplied Pln. vietmanensis and compare with the Cribb sketch and description.




You can see that - as in the description for vietnamensis - your photograph shows TWO rows of hairs (one each side of the mid-line). So this makes it truly Pln. vietnamensis... Karel?  ... Do you agree?

Have you photographs of the lip of your Pln. Praecox var.reichenbachiana to see if it has 4 rows?

Obviously, I started this thread because I didn't know how to identify this species. Interesting, I've realised, how it's possible (with thanks to Karels pointers) to discover original scientific material that helps deepen our own expertise!