Phil, It is interesting that when Pabst described L. mantiqueirae he mentions it as coming from Serra da Mantiqueira. Probably he got wrong info from the collector as never another Laelia mantiqueira was found there, it is not even a region with proper conditions to those Laelia to grow.
As L. crispilabia and L. caulescens are variable species and description diference is very subtle, distinction is made almost exclusively based on collection place. Probably the diference is not enough to support distint species. Here in Brazil we do consider all three as the same, at least until another L. mantiqueira is found on that area, what is not likely to happen. Regarding L. flava-L.crispata issue, apparently the quite ancient original description of Laelia crispata, as Cymbidium crispatum made by Thunb. in 1818, refered to what we know as L. flava, nevertheless it was horticulturally used as being what we called as L. crispata. Recently Miranda checked the exsicata and corrected the mistake, therefore, L. flava became L. crispata and what we knew as the former L. crispata became L rupestris (that was treated as a synonym of L. crispata). So far all in Brazil follow that, either, Van den Berg and Chase on their revision of Laelia, when they moved them to Sophronitis, and Chiron and V.P.Castro when they moved it to Hoffmannseggella. Take a look at: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/orchidnews/on17/paginas/vitor01eng.htm There you will find some synonyms to Brazilian Laelia. It does not matter what you decide to call them, Sophronitis, Laelia, Hoffmannseggella or whatever, most of synonyms are there and updated. Dalton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: [OGD] Laelia (Sophronitis) crispilabia > I have recently purchased a flask of the supposedly rare L. crispilabia so > have been doing a bit of research on the species and find a bit of confusion. > Withner in his Vol II on Laelias is fairly clear in distinguishing crispilabia > from caulescens although he does say that Filho considers them congeneric. In > his comments on caulescens he (Withner) mentions that he considers this is > likely to be the same as mantiqueirae. > > No problems so far. Withners descriptions do not make the differences between > crispilabia and caulescens clear apart from noting that crispilabia has a > long-stalked midlobe. The distinction would seem to be pretty subtle. > > A little research on the web throws up the confusion. In particular Miranda on > his web site states that crispilabia IS caulescens. He doesn't refer to any > published material on this but does seem to have done a lot of field work. My > question is - is his opinion shared by other authorities or is he mistaken > and in fact overlooking the difference cited by Withner? > > Also on Miranda's site he refers to crispata as being L. flava but neglects to > comment on the colour difference (crispata being re-purple and flava yellow) > and that I find difficult to accept. > > Thanks > Phil > Blenheim NZ > (Where the frost is slowly thawing off the lawn) > > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra. > Scan engine: VirusScan / Atualizado em 08/07/2004 / Versco: 1.5.2 > Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://www.emailprotegido.terra.com.br/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
