Dactylorhiza- white wanted plus debate on naming

[Graham Catlow]

Hi!
I wonder if anyone would have any offsets of a white Dactylorhiza, (possibly O’Kellyi or ‘Eskimo Nell’), to spare if you are splitting yours this year. I have a couple of options for exchange. The first I purchased as D. foliosa, but the second was given to me and I don't have a name for it.
The other option is that I purchase one from you.
Please PM me if you are interested in exchanging or selling.

The photos below are of the parent plants that I will remove off sets from.
D. foliosa
D. unknown?
D. unknown? leaves.

Graham

[Lesley Cox]

I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.

[gote]

I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
 

[Graham Catlow]

I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.

I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
 

Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?

Thank you both for your comments.

Graham

[Lesley Cox]

Ah well, it was just a suggestion after all. Thanks Gote for the correction. It wouldn't be the first time I'd put the parts around the wrong way.

I really like these spotted orchids because they seed about and come up in pots, troughs and anywhere in the grass or soil. Lovely to have orchids naturalizing in one's garden.

[Paul T]

Lesley,

Dang, I wish they would in mine!! 

[gote]

I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.

I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte
 

Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?

Thank you both for your comments.

Graham

So you are confused. Welcome to the club! 
I think that this is an area where there have been too many splitters around. Orchids are prestige plants so they are a popular subject. I have grown a plant that started with solid stem and narrow leaves = maculata and which two years later had hollow stem and broad leaves = majalis. I have also seen swarms of dactylorhizas at Catalan roadsides that had all sorts of variations.
I have a suspicion that some of the early diagnoses (which are supposed to have precedence) were made on immature or otherwise atypical specimen which were found singly - not in populations which showed the natural variation. The result is that keys and descriptions sometimes rely on traits that are not constant.
Looking at your pictures - at the stage they are - I also think it looks like majalis. The rather wide leaves and pointed dark inflorecense point to that. Fuchsii is USUALLY lighter pink but that says next to nothing.
Some of the things  that I cannot see in your pics are length of bracts, edge of bracts shape of lip (threeparted, deeply threeparted or not threeparted). Shape of the bottom leaf.
The question would be easier if we knew the origin of the plant.
Göte

     

[Graham Catlow]

I would suggest (only suggest!) that the lower leaves and flowers are of D. fuchsii ssp maculata, a good, well marked form.

I think you mean the other way round Lesley: maculata v fuchsii. Maculata is the species plantarum name i believe.
Fuchsii usually has a characteristic tounge-shaped bottom leaf. (widest near the end and rounded at the end) Take a look at the bottom! It is hidden in the picture.
Cheers
Göte

Gote - do you think it is D. maculata v fuchsii?
This one has me confused and moreso now. It has also been suggested it is D. majalis.
Does anyone else care to offer a suggestion?

Thank you both for your comments.

Graham

So you are confused. Welcome to the club! 
I think that this is an area where there have been too many splitters around. Orchids are prestige plants so they are a popular subject. I have grown a plant that started with solid stem and narrow leaves = maculata and which two years later had hollow stem and broad leaves = majalis. I have also seen swarms of dactylorhizas at Catalan roadsides that had all sorts of variations.
I have a suspicion that some of the early diagnoses (which are supposed to have precedence) were made on immature or otherwise atypical specimen which were found singly - not in populations which showed the natural variation. The result is that keys and descriptions sometimes rely on traits that are not constant.
Looking at your pictures - at the stage they are - I also think it looks like majalis. The rather wide leaves and pointed dark inflorecense point to that. Fuchsii is USUALLY lighter pink but that says next to nothing.
Some of the things  that I cannot see in your pics are length of bracts, edge of bracts shape of lip (threeparted, deeply threeparted or not threeparted). Shape of the bottom leaf.
The question would be easier if we knew the origin of the plant.
Göte

     

Thanks Gote,
I think this could run for a long time and is perhaps not in the correct thread. It may never come to a perfect conclusion.
Maybe we should wind it up after this entry and move to PMs if we wish to continue.
I have attached four more photos for you.
The cut stem is from the largest plant I currently have as is the photo of the leaf. All the stems I cut are not hollow; suggesting it is not majalis. The younger plants have narrow leaves even down to the basal ones. There are also two close up photos of the flower.
Maybe this will help

Graham

[Maggi Young]

I'll  rename this topic and move it to the orchid section.

[Graham Catlow]

Hi Maggi,
I thought you might at some point
Graham

[fredg]

Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata are seperate named species.

As for naming unknowns, safest way is just to put Dactylorhiza on the label and the flower colour.
The range you see in one population in the wild is amazing.
I did note that no one volunteered identifications on the field trip photos 

[gote]

Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Dactylorhiza maculata are seperate named species.

As for naming unknowns, safest way is just to put Dactylorhiza on the label and the flower colour.
The range you see in one population in the wild is amazing.
I did note that no one volunteered identifications on the field trip photos 

Certainly - by the auctors in question. However, the situation today seems to be that fuchsii is regarded as a subspecies of maculata which was named Orchis maculata in Species plantarum and thus is the type.
That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte   

[gote]

Graham,
I will check with my books but cannot do that within the next few days. If you do not hear from me on this thread or privately within a couple of weeks, pls give me a prod.
Cheers
Göte

[fredg]

That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte   

They've had 48 years to change the label, surely that's long enough

[gote]

That fuchsii is a ssp is stated by the website of the Swedish national museum of natural history, which covers most plants growing wild in Sweden
Cheers
Göte   

They've had 48 years to change the label, surely that's long enough

I am not quite sure what you mean by that    Stålberg’s doctoral thesis was published in 2003. That is only seven years ago and it seems that the homepage contains data from the thesis. If you disagree with the thesis I am sure Stålberg would be delighted to be corrected.   
I suggest that you study the thesis. It is in English and available on: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1176457