Soph. purpurata

[palito]

So in my new interest with species, I got a Sophronitis purpurata (formerly Laelia purpurata)


I've been looking online for particular care and quirks about this particular plant. but no luck so far except the usual general care sheets. Any tips ? Do they like getting dry before watering or do they prefer a higher constant humidity like their smaller brazilian sisters.

[Tobi]

Hi Pilato,
Found this. Hope it helps.

http://www.chadwickorchids.com/Cattl...apurpurata.htm

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by palito

So in my new interest with species, I got a Sophronitis purpurata (formerly Laelia purpurata)

The movement of many Laelias into the genus Sophronitis has been, at best, highly controversial, confusing, and as the authors of the change admit, temporary. The tenuous nature of this change is reinforced by the fact that it has not yet been recognized by the RHS for the purposes of registering hybrids. No one I know (neither hobbiests, nuseries, judges, nor anyone else) uses the change. Given the choice between changing only to have it change again in a few years when it gets all sorted out, and waiting until it's all sorted out and changing once, I choose the latter.

As I've advocated many times on the forum, I think it is least confusing to go with the RHS regarding recognized species names. It seems unnecessarily confusing to have all of the names of our hybrids registered according to one set of species names but all of our species named according to a different set (or sets) of names.

In short...leave it Laelia.

Originally Posted by palito

I've been looking online for particular care and quirks about this particular plant. but no luck so far except the usual general care sheets. Any tips ? Do they like getting dry before watering or do they prefer a higher constant humidity like their smaller brazilian sisters.

I love Laelia purpurata. Talk about putting on a big show! And talk about variety! I grew var. carnea for several years before selling the plant when I moved here.

I grew it in an east window (no blinds or sheers) grew it in large bark with perilite and charcoal pieces (so a fairly dry mix) and watered it once a week year round. I grew it with fairly high humidity (80%+), slightly lower humidity in winter (50%+). My temps ranged from winter night time lows of about 55F to summer highs of near 90F. I fertilized it heavily with high-nitrogen when in active growth. I used no fertilizer during blooming, rest, or when it wasn't growing. It bloomed once a year for me. Sound easy? It sure was. I never fussed over it, repotted it about every 2 years or so, ignored it a lot. It always produced.

Enjoy it! and post some flower pics when you get some. By the way, what variety is it?

[palito]

thanks Tobi and Kmarch for that detailed information !!!!
The tag doesn't say any variety. all i know is that it is seed grown. So I guess I'll have to wait until it blooms to see the color of the lip, (probably just purple). I think it *should* bloom next year.

re: changes. I noticed that in the RHS website, the change of names has been adopted - at least in their database and the hybrids have been updated to reflect the changes as well. I also noticed that Kew has it now as an accepted name and the others are synonyms.

For example i looked up Laeliocattleya Canhamiana and it no longer appears. It is now listed as Sophrocattleya Canhamiana and its parent is now listed as Sophronitis purpurata.

This must be very recent, because I remember looking up that plant maybe two months ago and it was still under its old name. Same thing with others that I checked. And the OrchidWiz database is also updating to the new names.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by palito

re: changes. I noticed that in the RHS website, the change of names has been adopted - at least in their database and the hybrids have been updated to reflect the changes as well. I also noticed that Kew has it now as an accepted name and the others are synonyms.

Oh god.....what a @#!&%?! mess this is going to be...

You're right, it must be a very recent thing....this is going to be a nightmare. I am usually singing the praises of the RHS about how careful they are in waiting to see if species name changes are accepted before changing registered hybrids but this is a disaster in the making; very shortsighted and unnecessary.

I hope they're not thinking to themselves "Oh gee, now that everything is in a database, it's easy to keep up with the changes." If they are then all of our hybrid names will change as fast as and be as muddled as the species name changes. And will the RHS change back in 6 months when the next revision by someone else is published? It's a very ill-considered move that will create a great deal of confusion for orchid growers.

I feel like putting my foot down and refusing to accept it.

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

I would like to use some very nasty language aimed at them, but I am told it is not very lady like. So, immagine, if you will, me cussing them very crudely. I am sure some of you will do an especially good job at this.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Jimeny Crickets! I drop out of the orchid world for a few years, and damned if they haven't been having a field day with genetics-based taxonomy. I must admit, however, that it is hard to argue with genetic analysis. Better than "well, this one has this bit of fleshy protrubence here, so it obviously belongs in this genus".... Oh well, you people think the Laeliinae are f'ed up, you should have a look at the Pleurothallidiinae! It's gonna be hard getting used to the FIFTY new genera that have come out of Masdevallia, since I was last into orchids, but it looks like good, solid taxonomy. Masdevallia has been a catch-all for far too long. Besides, even on a morphological level, you have to agree that L. (S.) purpurata and L. speciosa have some very distinct differences...

Then again, i used to want to BE a taxonomist. At least I'm not being sworn at... LOL

-Cj

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

I believe the situation IS that you can argue over the genetics. There is very little difference in the genes, and there are a great many, so that the choice of section of gene to base genus changes on is questionable. This is probably why they have lump so many together. There really isn't the clear cut differences that we would have hoped for. They should have waited until their work on the various regions of the genes was more comprehensive. My preference would have been to put the Mexican Laelias into Laelia, and refer to every other Laelia as Pseudolaelia, and leave the Sophs alone.

[kmarch]

I found this article reprinted form the AOS magazine, July 2003 that makes case for the large flowered, broad-lipped Laelias like lobata, crispa, and purpurata being classed with Cattleyas.

http://www.chadwickorchids.com/Cattl...purpurata1.htm

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

Sounds very convincing to me. I would assume that the number of pollinia would be far less important than the number of chromosomes, and I was struck by the variation in the number of chromosomes within some genera while going over Bakers book on The Oncidium family.

[Orchidflowerchild]

The point about what sections fo the genome to compare is valid, but I feel that, overall, genetic analysis of the species is much more reliable than pure morphology. Perhaps a combination thereof. Meanwhile, the genus psuedolaelia already exists as a carribbean and south american taxon.

http://www.orchidspecies.com/pseudirwiniana.htm

-Cj

[Cynthia, Prescott, AZ]

So much for pseudolaelia. Fortunately, the hybridizers like Fred Clark of Sunset Valley Orchids, who uses a lot of Soph. coccinea in his breeding, are not paying any attention to the changes. Many of the Sophronitis are very cool growing, and the S in SL/SLC/SC is a heads up to the people in Phoenix to check ahead of time how much coccinea is in the breeding, as they can not grow such plants in their greenhouses because of the summer heat.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by Cynthia, Prescott, AZ

So much for pseudolaelia. Fortunately, the hybridizers like Fred Clark of Sunset Valley Orchids, who uses a lot of Soph. coccinea in his breeding, are not paying any attention to the changes. Many of the Sophronitis are very cool growing, and the S in SL/SLC/SC is a heads up to the people in Phoenix to check ahead of time how much coccinea is in the breeding, as they can not grow such plants in their greenhouses because of the summer heat.

Indeed. Frankly, I don't think it should be something that should so quickly be changed in the hybrid registries. The vagaries of taxonomy are really more for the serious species enthusiast, I think. Otherwise, leave the registries alone, if only until a taxonomic change becomes commonly accepted and used. Especially in genera very popular in hybridising.

My two cents.

-Cj

[palito]

Originally Posted by Cynthia, Prescott, AZ

Many of the Sophronitis are very cool growing, and the S in SL/SLC/SC is a heads up to the people in Phoenix to check ahead of time how much coccinea is in the breeding, as they can not grow such plants in their greenhouses because of the summer heat.

hehe yes! I normally stay away from anything sc or slc... now I have to look closely in the registry to see where the s is coming from....

Nevertheless, I have been able to grow a Slc. Angel love in spagh perpetually saturated in water, outdoors at 90+F in the summer.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Orchidflowerchild

Indeed. Frankly, I don't think it should be something that should so quickly be changed in the hybrid registries. The vagaries of taxonomy are really more for the serious species enthusiast, I think. Otherwise, leave the registries alone, if only until a taxonomic change becomes commonly accepted and used. Especially in genera very popular in hybridising. -Cj

Usually the RHS does this, they typically have been slow to adopt changes, opting to wait until the taxonomic community either accepts the change or rejects it. This is what I find so puzzling about this instance. It's been only somethign like 5-6 years since that revision was published and i regularly hear it criticized. Never praised. Instead this time, for whatever reason, they rushed to incorporate a change that it would seem no one wants and the end result will be an avalanche of confusion over intergeneric hybrid names.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by kmarch

Usually the RHS does this, they typically have been slow to adopt changes, opting to wait until the taxonomic community either accepts the change or rejects it. This is what I find so puzzling about this instance. It's been only somethign like 5-6 years since that revision was published and i regularly hear it criticized. Never praised. Instead this time, for whatever reason, they rushed to incorporate a change that it would seem no one wants and the end result will be an avalanche of confusion over intergeneric hybrid names.

As far as the RHS is concerned, apparently the hybrid genus Doritaenopsis no longer exists, either...

I'll have to get on there tomorrow and see if they've been paying attention to Luer's work in the Pleurothallidiinae.... Jesus, Masdevallia has become FIFTY-ONE genera, recently....I can just imagine what is going on in the registries, if RHS is suddenly on the taxonomy bandwagon in some of the genera that are being heavily revised, of late.

-Cj

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Orchidflowerchild

As far as the RHS is concerned, apparently the hybrid genus Doritaenopsis no longer exists, either...

Yes about 5 years or so ago Eric christensen published a monograph on Phals and put Doritis bac in with Phals. This seems to have caught on without any fuss and the RHS adopted the change recently.