Table Of Content

Selbyana 28(1): 91-94. 2007. ole Notes from the PHALAENOPSIS VIOLACEA, IN A BROADER SENSE STIG DALSTROM Curator, Orchid Identification Center, Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, 811 South Palm Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236 USA. Email: [email protected] Recently, a fine plant awarded as Phalaen its violet colour, and in some cases also the con opsis bellina (Rchb.f.) Christenson, was submit tiguous halves of the lateral sepals, forming a ted to the Orchid Identification Center (OIC) at very elegant contrast." the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, Sarasota, So the question is: what separates Phalaen Florida, for verification of the identity. As it of opsis bellina from Phalaenopsis violacea? Ac ten turns out, many of our most beloved and cording to the author of the former species, the "well-known" orchids also represent some of difference is based on morphological and che the most confusing and toughest taxonomical mo-taxonomic data; but it is also mentioned that nuts to crack. Phalaenopsis bellina is a good the two species generally represent separate geo example of this. The process of studying the nat graphic distributions, where Phalaenopsis belli ural history of this beautiful orchid led me into na is horticulturally known as the "Bornean an all too familiar complex and confusing tax type" and Phalaenopsis violacea represents onomic jungle. For anybody lost in "the jun what is known as the "Malayan type," although gle," a good way to get out of it can be to follow the type plant of the latter species was collected a straight line in any direction and hope for the in Sumatra. These "type" definitions seem to best, and that the line is short enough to survive. have been coined by Janet and Lee Kuhn (1965), To get out of a taxonomic jungle, I compare with the creators of J & L Orchids, who imported similar cases that I am more familiar with, select large numbers of Phalaenopsis violacea over the a proper direction that seems logical and consis years. To complicate things, both "types" (at tent, and stay on that track until things begin to least the "Bornean" type) reportedly occurs make sense. throughout the entire area of distribution, mak Phalaenopsis bellina was described in Brit ing this geographic "typification" unreliable for tonia 47(1): 57 (1995), by Christenson, as a new taxonomic purposes. On the other hand, the fact combination of a "variety" of Phalaenopsis vio that both "types" grow sympatrically, or at least lacea Witte, giving it rank as a distinct species. in the same country (even though they may be The name "bellina" originates from a Phalaen isolated by other factors such as altitude or hab opsis that was sent to Reichenbach by Williams itat preference) supports the possibility that they in 1878, subsequently identified as Phalaenopsis may indeed be distinct species. What speaks violacea var. bellina, and published in the Gar against this, however, are the selected distin dener's Chronicle, n.s. 22: 262 (1884). A draw guishing features for Phalaenopsis bellina on ing was prepared by Reichenbach, which can be which the species diagnosis is based. seen at the herbarium of the Museum of Natural The first feature mentioned by Christenson is History in Vienna, and in various publications a difference in color. The flowers of Phalaen (Sweet, 1968; Christenson, 2001). The natural opsis violacea are "usually rose-pink but may origin of this plant is unknown (Sweet, 1980). be white ... or bluish." The color of Phalen If we check the distribution of Phalaenopsis vio opsis bellina is described as "white, greenish lacea in Williams' "The Orchid Grower's Man white, or yellow ... tepals with an intense deep ual": 674-675 (1894), however, we read "Ma purple blotch on the inner halves of the lateral lay Archipelago." Additionally, Rolfe (1891) re sepals. In some color forms of P. bellina there ported that in 1881 Mr. Curtis sent a consign are either purple spots or purple flushes on the ment of plants from Palembang (southern proximal portions of the petals and lateral se Sumatra) to Veitch that were "very variable in pals. The perianth of P. bellina, however, is nev the colour of its flowers, which range from al er uniformly pigmented as in P. violacea." most uniform violet shade down to cream-white, When analyzing these descriptions, my impres with the segments somewhat barred and spotted sion is that we are dealing with a certain degree in some varieties. In the light-coloured varieties, of natural variation in color range for both taxa however, the front lobe of the lip usually retains that merge into each other. Looking at the cho- 91 92 SELBYANA Volume 28(1) 2007 FIGURE 1. Comparison of Phalaenopsis violacea illustrations. A. Reichenbach's watercolor of Phalaenopsis violacea var. bellina. B. Rolfe's painting of Phalaenopsis violacea. C. Veitch's drawing of Phalaenopsis violacea. D. Williams' drawing of Phalaenopsis violacea. sen photographs and illustrations in Christen Phalaenopsis bellina and Phalaenopsis violacea son's (2001) monographic treatment of the ge is based on morphological differences in the nus strengthens this impression, with at least shape and size of the sepals and petals, where Phalaenopsis violacea f. coerulea displaying the one extreme is considered as one species, and coloration pattern typical for Phalaenopsis bel the opposite extreme is considered the second lina. In general, vague and inconsistent color species. No other morphological differences are differences alone are not particularly reliable for apparent to separate these two taxa. When I an taxonomical purposes, and this case seems to be alyze these features in various publications and no exception. descriptions (Le., Dourado 1978, Fitch 1980, The second feature of distinction between Williams 1894) it becomes clear that both size NOTES FROM THE OlC 93 and shape of the sepals and petals vary a lot, "bow-leggedness" as a useful taxonomic char and merge into each other as well. This diffuse acteristic for this species. Viewing the selected "distinction" is not satisfactory to consider the photographs and illustrations in Christenson's two entities as separate species either, but rather treatment (2001) of both Phalaenopsis bellina demonstrate the degree of natural variability of and Phalaenopsis violacea clearly reveals that a widespread species: Phalaenopsis violacea. A this "bow-leggedness" varies a lot and merely comparable case is represented by Odontoglos represents natural variability within a species. sum crispum Lindl., which is a highly variable Another example of the inconsistency in the orchid from the Colombian Andes. For whatever "bow-legged" versus "star-shaped" character reasons, this polymorphic species displays an istics can be seen if we study the selected pho impressive degree of variation in terms of color tographs of Phalaenopsis sumatrana in Chris patterns, shape and size of the sepals, petals and tenson's treatment (2001). These photographs lip (Dalstr6m 1996, 2003). Originally, many of show a high degree of variability regarding the these forms were described as distinct species, position and shape of the lateral sepals, includ but gradually as the growers and the botanists ing some seriously "bow-legged" ones. Fur learned more about the natural populations and thermore, a form originally described as Pha their variations, it became clear that they all rep laenopsis violacea var. schroederiana by Rei resented one single taxon. This conclusion does chenbach is identified as Phalaenopsis X sin not contradict the existence of, and need for, cer guliflora and considered a hybrid between tain geographical "type definitions." An exam Phalaenopsis bellina and Phalaenopsis suma ple of this is the "Pacho type" and the "Fusa trana Korth. & Rchb.f., by Christenson (2001). type," still used in horticulture to distinguish be The illustration shows a flower with some basal tween individual plants with larger and rounder, stripes and spottings on the sepals and petals, versus smaller and more star-shaped flowers. and a purple unicoloration on the upper halves The origin of these "type" definitions comes of the sepals and petals. The lateral sepals are from the fact that it was possible to find Odon distinctly "bow-legged." How this supposed hy toglossum crispum plants with horticulturally brid can get a uniform purple color on the upper desirable large and round flowers near the vil halves of the sepals and petals from one species lage of Pacho, north of Bogota. Respectively, that have brown spots and stripes (Phalaenopsis less desirable plants with starry flowers were sumatrana) and a species that "never" has this more common around the village of Fusagasuga, type of purple coloration (Phalaenopsis bellina) south of Bogota. This does not mean that you is puzzling. cannot find either one of these "types" in either The third feature is the chemo-taxonomic dif location. It appears to be the same situation for ference. Christenson and Whitten (1995) ana Phalaenopsis violacea, with many plants repre lyzed the floral fragrances between Phalaenop senting one form originating in Sarawak ("Bor sis bellina and Phalaenopsis violacea, and con nean" type) but found elsewhere as well; and cluded that they were different enough, together the smaller, often more unicolored forms, com with the above listed color and morphological monly referred to as the "Malayan type," gen features, to distinguish between these two spe erally originating in Malaysia and Indonesia (in cies. This result was never published, however; cluding Sumatra). One feature that is often con and when asked about this, Whitten (pers. nected with the "Bornean" type is the more or comm.) explains that differences in fragrance less "bow-legged" lateral sepals. Some authors composition provide evidence supporting that (Freed 1978) mention that many (but apparently the two are distinct, but it provides no conclu not all) plants imported from Borneo had this sive proof about species status. Variation in flo less attractive quality, while others (Kuhn 1965) ral fragrances or in leaf essential oils is common say that all plants imported by them from Bor within some species (chemotypes). Without neo had "bow-legged" lateral sepals. Veitch analyses of population samples of Phalaenopsis (1891) includes an illustration of a "bow-leg bellina and Phalaenopsis violacea, we don't ged" Phalaenopsis violacea in his Manual of know whether these differences in fragrances Orchidaceous Plants, but identifies Sumatra as correlate with morphological differences, and his source of plants. Williams (1894) illustrates we do not know whether the fragrances play an a "bow-legged" flower of Phalaenopsis viola important role in pollinator specificity. cea, with the Malay Archipelago as the geo When the flower of some strongly scented or graphic origin. Seidenfaden (1992) includes a chids (Coelogyne sp., Odontoglossum hallii) are drawing of a Phalaenopsis violacea with "bow dissected, the various parts have distinctly dif legged" lateral sepals in his Orchids of Penin ferent odors (pers. obs.), suggesting different sular Malaysia and Singapore. This effectively chemical compounds. Consequently, depending invalidates the geographic distinction of the on which part or combination of parts is used in 94 SELBYANA Volume 28(1) 2007 the analysis, the outcome may be different. In Phalaenopsis violacea f. coerulea Christen other cases, certain individual plants may reveal son, Phalaenopsis: 165 (2001). certain chemicals, while other individuals of the Phalaenopsis bellina f. murtoniana (Rchb.f.) same species do not. Dr. Doel Soejarto of the Christenson, Brittonia 47: 59 (1995). University of Illinois gathered a sample from a Phalaenopsis violacea var. murtoniana tree in Sarawak that produced a nonalkaloid Rchb.f., Gard. Chron., n.s., 10: 234 (1878). chemical compound effective in the laboratory Phalaenopsis bellina f. punctata (Rchb.f.) against HIV-l. Unfortunately, scientists were Christenson, Brittonia 47: 59 (1995). unable to find more of the substance in other Phalaenopsis violacea var. punctata trees of the same species (Plotkin 1993). Rchb.f., Gard. Chron., n.s., 22: 262 (1884). CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE CITED Christenson, E.A. 2001. Phalaenopsis a Monograph. When all here listed features are taken into Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. consideration, I cannot but conclude that Pha Christenson, E.A. and M.W. Whitten. 1995. Phalaen laenopsis bellina just represents selected indi opsis bellina (Rchb.f.) Christenson, a segregate vidual plants of a variable Phalaenopsis viola from P. violacea Witte (Orchidaceae: Aeridinae). cea. The terms "Bornean type" and "Malayan Brittonia 47(1): 57-60. type" are misapplied, but I suspect they will Dalstrom, S. 1996. Enigmatic Odontoglossnms, Part 6; probably remain in horticulture. What we really The Odontoglossum crispum complex. Orchids 9: have are forms of a species that display certain 966-969. ---. 2003. Orchids smarter than scientists: an ap slightly deviating characteristics, such as bow proach to Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae) taxonomy. legged lateral sepals, bluish color, or unusually Lankesteriana 7: 33-36. broad petals. A "form" is the lowest taxonomic Dourado, EM. 1978. Phalaenopsis violacea of Malaya. rank and is of no particular scientific impor Amer. Orchid. Soc. Bull. 47(8): 699-700. tance, although it can have a considerable hor Fitch, C.M. 1980. Indonesian orchid species special ticultural impact and value. ists-2. Amer. Orchid. Soc. Bull. 49(3): 259-264. The World Checklist of Monocotyledons rec Freed, H. 1978. Breeding with the Borneo-type Pha ognizes only Phalaenopsis violacea and treats laenopsis violacea. Amer. Orchid. Soc. Bull. all varieties and forms as synonyms. Thus the 47(8): 689-697. Govaerts, R., M.A. Campacci, D. Holland Baptista, P. OIC treats Phalaenopsis violacea in a broad Cribb, A. George, K. Kreuz, and J. Wood. 2005. sense. World Checklist of Orchidaceae. The Board of Phalaenopsis violacea H.Witte, Fl. Jard. 4: Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Pub lished on the Internet; http://www.kew.org/wcsp/ 129 (1861). accessed 16 February 2006; 17:30 GMT. Synonyms: Plotkin, M.J. 1993. Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice. Phalaenopsis bellina (Rchb.f.) Christenson, Penguin Books USA Inc., N.Y. Rolfe, R.A. 1891. Phalaenopsis violaceae in J. Linden. Brittonia 47: 58 (1995). Lindenia. 1885-1906. Gand: Imprimerie E. Van Phalaenopsis violacea var. bellina Rchb.f., der Haeghen, Belgium. Gard. Chron., n.s., 22: 262 (1884). Sweet, H. 1968. A revision of the genus Phalaenopsis Phalaenopsis violacea var. alba Teijsm. & Blume-2. Amer. Orchid. Soc. Bull. 37(12): Binn., Natuurk. Tijdschr. Ned.-Indie 24: 320 1089-1104. (1862). ---. 1969. A revision of the genus Phalaenopsis Phalaenopsis bellina f. alba Christenson, Blume-3. Amer. Orchid. Soc. Bull. 38(1): 33- Phalaenopsis: 113 (2001). 43. Phalaenopsis violacea f. alba (Teijsm. & ---. 1980. The Genus Phalaenopsis. Orchid Digest Corp., Pomona, Calif. Binn.) Christenson, Phalaenopsis: 164 Veitch, J. 1891. A Manual of Orchidaceous Plants. (2001). 2(7), Phalaenopsis: 13-52. James Veitch & Sons, Phalaenopsis bellina f. bowringiana (Rchb.f.) London. Christenson, Brittonia 47: 59 (1995). Williams, B.S. and H. Williams. 1894. The Orchid Phalaenopsis violacea var. bowringiana Grower's Manual, 7th ed., Phalaenopsis: 657- Rchb.f., Gard. Chron., n.s., 22: 262 (1884). 675. Victoria and Paradise Nurseries, London.