Question about my Phal. stuartiana

[jpyerry]

Here is a question for the species Phalaenopsis experts on the forum. Not too long ago my Phalaenopsis stuartiana 'Sogo' HCC/AOS bloomed. I have been perusing literature on Phalaenopsis stuartianas ever since. Is the 'Sogo' clone of Phal. stuartiana actually Phalaenopsis stuartiana var. punctatissima? I noticed that the little freckles on my Phalaenopsis stuartiana 'Sogo' are absent on pictures of Phalaenopsis stuartiana, but are present with the punctatissima variants.

Thanks,
Justin

[Brooke]

I only have the Sogo clone and never gave it any thought. If you find out anything I hope you share your findings.

Brooke

[JLu]

You realize that stuartiana has spots on the lip midlobe and the inferior, proximal halves of the lateral sepals.

If your plant has spots on the dorsal sepal and petals it would be f. punctatissima by definition. This form was described by Rchb.f. in 1882. Christenson describes these spots as in "zones" meaning they are clustered in some areas with white space separating the clusters. Again..that must be on the dorsal sepal and petals.

[jpyerry]

Originally Posted by JLu

You realize that stuartiana has spots on the lip midlobe and the inferior, proximal halves of the lateral sepals.

If your plant has spots on the dorsal sepal and petals it would be f. punctatissima by definition. This form was described by Rchb.f. in 1882. Christenson describes these spots as in "zones" meaning they are clustered in some areas with white space separating the clusters. Again..that must be on the dorsal sepal and petals.

Yes, I did realize that stuartiana has spots on the lip and the inferior proximal halves of the lateral sepals.

So, by the definition since it does have spots on the dorsal sepal and petals, I would conclude that it is punctatissima.

The reason that I posed the question is that I have never seen the 'Sogo' referenced as a punctatissima, and I was wondering if there was something I was missing when comparing the pictures. It certainly seems odd that so few people identify it as a punctatissima, when the 'Sogo' stuartiana clone is kind of famous for its spots on the dorsal sepal and petals. So, I posed the question to those who know more about these things than I do. More of a way for me to confirm a suspicion, than anything else.

Well, I guess it is time to go change the tag on the plant.

Attached is a picture of my plant with the spots I was questioning are pointed out.

[JLu]

Sorry I thought you asked a question. I'll not do that again. Just for your information the awarded plants are about 50/50 on the spots or no spots. So it appears the punctatissima variety is about as common as the unspotted one. Only one of those awarded cultivars actually is identified as a punctatissima so it appears not to be very important to most people. Either way it's still a stuartiana so you don't necessarily have to change the tag to recognize the variety. You can do whatever you wish with it.

[jpyerry]

Originally Posted by JLu

Sorry I thought you asked a question. I'll not do that again. Just for your information the awarded plants are about 50/50 on the spots or no spots. So it appears the punctatissima variety is about as common as the unspotted one. Only one of those awarded cultivars actually is identified as a punctatissima so it appears not to be very important to most people. Either way it's still a stuartiana so you don't necessarily have to change the tag to recognize the variety. You can do whatever you wish with it.

JLu, I was asking a question, I am unsure as to why you think I wasn't. I wanted to know if I was correct in thinking that Phal. stuartiana 'Sogo' would be correctly identified as Phal. stuartiana fma. punctatissima.

I am not sure what you mean by "I'll not do that again." You answered my question both as to whether or not the plant is the variety I thought it might be, and then answered my further question as to why it is not commonly identified as such. This is precisely the information I was looking for, and I thank you for providing it. So please, by all means, if you have the answers to any questions, certainly give them freely! In other words, please go ahead do it again and again and again.

I apologize if my tone was dismissive or ungrateful sounding, I certainly did not mean it to be. I will admit that I should have been more specific in describing the spots to which I was referring in my original post, for that I apologize. And, I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was ungrateful or dismissive of the information that you were providing.

Thanks, your post was helpful.
Justin

PS I just like to keep my tags as up-to-date and accurate as possible, that is why I indicated that I would update it. It is kind of my OCD tendencies rearing its head.

[JLu]

OK, you should realize the difference between properly described plant names and peer accepted plant names.

A concept is properly described if the description meets the exacting specifications for form and content prescribed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

A name becomes a peer accepted name only after a proper description and acceptance by peer scientists. This process of acceptance confuses people because it has no formal rules. It is a concept of science that comes from several documentation agencies with the RBG at KEW being the most used. KEW's decisions are made by an international advisory committee. There are other documenting agencies. IPNI is the next best known, but KEW is part of IPNI and they seldom deviate. Tropicos is another but seldom relied upon.

KEW recognizes 7 properly described varieties/forms of stuartiana (although 4 of those are just replications of both var and f equivalents, nobilis and punctatissima). KEW recognizes
Phalaenopsis stuartiana Rchb.f. (1881) as the accepted name for all the stuartiana's. (By the way, the proper way to write an official name is Genus species subspecies/var/form Author publication date. I left out the pub for brevity but it's Gardners Chronicle and it should be included, but often is not.

None of the properly described names are "wrong" and are synonyms of the accepted name, Phal stuartiana. However, Phal stuartiana Rchb.f. (1881) is the accepted name and it is never wrong to use it for all stuartiana's. In fact, the most correct name is the accepted name.

As an example of usage...AOS will record any award to P stuartiana as Phalaenopsis stuartiana if the plant is so entered. However they will also record the plant as one of the properly described var/f if so entered (and meets the requirements). Others pretty much do the same...use the accepted name while not rejecting synonyms if applied.