Paphiopedilum ciliolare and P. superbiens: a case for a more thorough study of 'known' species
When my interest with species orchids was still in its embryonic stages (this was the period spanning from 2000-2006), I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Andres Golamco Jr., through a friend, Ernie Alvaran; Mr. Golamco, or Jun as he is called, was one of the authors who described Vanda ustii and was the first person to realize that the plant illustrated in Dr. Valmayor's Orchidiana Philippiniana as Phalaenopsis x leucorrhoda was, in fact, an undescribed species, later described as P. philippinensis. Jun also described Paphiopedilum anitum, in 1998. In one of our lengthy discussions about orchids, he mentioned that the Sumatran Paphiopedilum superbiens also occurs in the Philippines. So I began clarifying to him if there is a chance he might be confusing what he thought was this species with the similar P. ciliolare, but he said that he was sure that the former does exist here.
In the succeeding years, I saw quite a number of P. ciliolare specimens but not even a single P. superbiens. Things changed when I was able to photograph a plant that did not quite fit the concept of P. ciliolare. But first things first: what is P. ciliolare, and what is P. superbiens?
Paphiopedilum ciliolare was described by Prof. Heinrich Reichenbach f. as Cypripedium ciliolare in 1882 from plants discovered by William Boxall in the Philippines. Boxall was employed as an orchid collector by Messrs. Low & Co. of Clapton. A consignment sent by Boxall to England was introduced as 'Cypripedium ciliolare a fine new species very closely resembling the much admired C. superbiens'. Reichenbach separated his new species from C. superbiens by the more copious veining on its floral segments, the more numerous and denser retrorse marginal hairs of the sepals and petals, the comparatively shorter labellum, and the broader lower bluntly toothed staminode. In 1981, Mark Wood drew attention to an observation that the number of veining in the taxon's sepals and petals are variable, and that all other characters excluding staminodal shield shape, overlaps with P. superbiens to some degree. It is for this reason that in the same year, he sunk P. ciliolare as a subspecies of P. superbiens, rather than an independent species- as Paphiopedilum superbiens subsp. ciliolare. This treatment is not followed by Phillip Cribb (1987) and subsequent authors, arguing that "the summation of minor vegetative and floral differences and the geographical disjunction are sufficient to recognise Paphiopedilum ciliolare as distinct as specific level (Cribb, 1987)." In 1988 Guido Braem added that P. ciliolare is further delineated from "Paphiopedilum superbiens by the lateral petals, spotted only over two-thirds of their length, a smaller pouch and by a protruding central tooth of the staminodal shield." Some orchidists have also noted that the wart-like spots on the upper margins of the petals are larger in this species than it is on P. superbiens.
Paphiopedilum ciliolare has been noted to occur on Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur on Mindanao as well as the two smaller islands north of it, Camiguin and Dinagat. The records for Mountain Province on Luzon is unsubstantiated.
Paphiopedilum superbiens was also described by the same guy who had P. ciliolare described, but also under Cypripedium and also much earlier, in 1855. The description was based on a plant flowered in the private collection of Consul Schiller (namesake of the spectacular Phalaenopsis schilleriana) in Hamburg. The plant was obtained from Messrs. Rollison and it was purported to have come from Java. In 1882 Reichenbach f. described Cypripedium curtisii from a collection made in Sumatra and stated to be related to both C. superbiens and C. ciliolare, but was only compared to the latter, said to be separated from it by the shorter and thinner hairs on the sepal margins, its narrower petals with smaller spots, and a labellum of 'unusual' dimensions. Basing from illustrations of the types of both P. superbiens and P. curtisii, it was surmised that the petals of the former are longer and more oblanceolate (oblong-lanceolate; lanceolate means 'knife-shaped) in shape and are as long as the labellum. However, Mark Wood in 1975 indicated that from his examinations of preserved materials and importations from Sumatra, the types of both taxa are just extreme examples of just one species. In short, P. curtisii is the same as P. superbiens. My mention of P. curtisii here is an essential part of our discussion because it appears that P. superbiens is a variable species. As for P. superbiens being found on Java, Wood explained that in 1889 John Gould Veitch reported it from Mt. Ophir (now Gunung Ledang) in Malaya, despite Charles Lemaire's statement that the Mt. Ophir (now Gunung Talakmau) he was talking about is the one from central Sumatra. This means that P. superbiens is endemic to Sumatra. Probably.
So now P. ciliolare is a 'good' species. It is similar to P. superbiens but otherwise distinct. Again, probably. Below I have attached photographs of the two species' illustrations from Phillip Cribb's The Genus Paphiopedilum (1987). Please take a good look at the shape of the two taxa's staminodal shield shapes, both designated by the letter 'F'.
Staminodal shield shape is a very useful delimiting character in Paphiopedilum and has been used to separate look-alike species such as P. barbatum and P. callosum, and P. haynaldianum and P. lowii. I also used it to demote P. parnatanum to varietal level under P. argus in 2015. In the case of P. ciliolare, the staminodal shield has a peaked shape with three small lobes below, the marginal ones shortly acute and the central lobe shortly rounded.
On the other hand, the staminodal shield of P. superbiens is croissant-shaped, less peaked above, but also with a blunt central tooth beneath.
Now, here's a question for you: what do you think is this plant below? Looking at the petals, it's plain to see that spots are confined to only about two-thirds of the total length of the petals, and the labellum is nowhere near as long as the petals. Notable too are the prominent, dark, raised spots on the upper petal margins. So this could be P. ciliolare.
Or is it? A closer inspection of this plant's staminodal shield reveals that it has the somewhat croissant shape of P. superbiens, albeit the upper portion is roughly horizontal:
How about this one? The petals have spotting throughout its length as in P. superbiens, and the labellum is deeper in comparison to P. ciliolare.
However, its staminodal shield fits that of P. ciliolare:
The person who owns this latter plant inconveniently lost its provenance data, but is said to have surely come from somewhere on Mindanao. And if my memory isn't failing me, Jun may have mentioned that P. superbiens in the Philippines occurs in the same general area where P. anitum is found.
Now what? Our main handicap here is that our sampling is very low- I only illustrated two plants. We do not also have the benefit of proper in situ studies of these species. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that these two plants have traits of both P. ciliolare and P. superbiens, and P. superbiens appears to be a variable plant. I am not implying that these two taxa are one and the same species, nor am I saying that P. superbiens does occur in the Philippines- there's still some creased areas that need to be ironed out. What I am trying to get across here is that the sampling and observations of other authors may have been insufficient too, and that no one has really tried to look into the range of variation of both species to see if their aspects do indeed overlap, especially in the Philippine plants. The current trend- and I am about to go into a soapbox here- is that many of those who study orchids, particularly the current ones, have this inclination to set their eyes toward the description of new species instead of allotting equal or more time in lending a closer look to already named species whose ecology and identity remains gray. Of course, the argument "at least it has already a name" will crop up from time to time as a form of defense for people whose main goal is just to describe new species, and I will agree with that, to a limited extent. But then again, why stop there? In this age where vast tracts of forested areas are being trammeled at horrendous rates, learning about the species' facets are in my opinion, equally important as naming a new species, perhaps even more so. For example, the island of Dinagat is said to be under the mercy of mining companies, but has anyone studied the population of P. ciliolare there? How much do we really know of this species and P. superbiens and what is their range of variation? Do P. ciliolare-like plants also occur on Sumatra? Why is it that P. superbiens appear to have such a disjunct distribution? What should we call these plants with intermediate traits? And how reliable can staminodal shield shape be used in distinguishing taxa within the genus Paphiopedilum, and what species constitute exceptions?
Doubtless that the answers to these and for other plants we know little of will not come from someone like me whose time for botany has ebbed, but hopefully from someone who will take the initiative with enough insight and patience to spend longer time in the forest to learn more about a species rather than merely passing by to see what is found there (and perhaps hoping to discover something new and have it named after himself or to someone with little or no interest with orchids in the first place 😏). Because only then, in my opinion, can botany achieve its noble purpose.
Further reading
Braem, G.J. 1988. 'Paphiopedilum'. Brucke-Verlag Kurt Schmersow, Germany
Cribb, P.J. 1987. 'The Genus Paphiopedilum'. Collingridge Books, England
Wood, M.W. 1975. 'Paphiopedilum superbiens'. Orchid Review 83: 394-399
In the succeeding years, I saw quite a number of P. ciliolare specimens but not even a single P. superbiens. Things changed when I was able to photograph a plant that did not quite fit the concept of P. ciliolare. But first things first: what is P. ciliolare, and what is P. superbiens?
Paphiopedilum ciliolare was described by Prof. Heinrich Reichenbach f. as Cypripedium ciliolare in 1882 from plants discovered by William Boxall in the Philippines. Boxall was employed as an orchid collector by Messrs. Low & Co. of Clapton. A consignment sent by Boxall to England was introduced as 'Cypripedium ciliolare a fine new species very closely resembling the much admired C. superbiens'. Reichenbach separated his new species from C. superbiens by the more copious veining on its floral segments, the more numerous and denser retrorse marginal hairs of the sepals and petals, the comparatively shorter labellum, and the broader lower bluntly toothed staminode. In 1981, Mark Wood drew attention to an observation that the number of veining in the taxon's sepals and petals are variable, and that all other characters excluding staminodal shield shape, overlaps with P. superbiens to some degree. It is for this reason that in the same year, he sunk P. ciliolare as a subspecies of P. superbiens, rather than an independent species- as Paphiopedilum superbiens subsp. ciliolare. This treatment is not followed by Phillip Cribb (1987) and subsequent authors, arguing that "the summation of minor vegetative and floral differences and the geographical disjunction are sufficient to recognise Paphiopedilum ciliolare as distinct as specific level (Cribb, 1987)." In 1988 Guido Braem added that P. ciliolare is further delineated from "Paphiopedilum superbiens by the lateral petals, spotted only over two-thirds of their length, a smaller pouch and by a protruding central tooth of the staminodal shield." Some orchidists have also noted that the wart-like spots on the upper margins of the petals are larger in this species than it is on P. superbiens.
Paphiopedilum ciliolare has been noted to occur on Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur on Mindanao as well as the two smaller islands north of it, Camiguin and Dinagat. The records for Mountain Province on Luzon is unsubstantiated.
 |
| Is this Paphiopedilum ciliolare? Well... |
Paphiopedilum superbiens was also described by the same guy who had P. ciliolare described, but also under Cypripedium and also much earlier, in 1855. The description was based on a plant flowered in the private collection of Consul Schiller (namesake of the spectacular Phalaenopsis schilleriana) in Hamburg. The plant was obtained from Messrs. Rollison and it was purported to have come from Java. In 1882 Reichenbach f. described Cypripedium curtisii from a collection made in Sumatra and stated to be related to both C. superbiens and C. ciliolare, but was only compared to the latter, said to be separated from it by the shorter and thinner hairs on the sepal margins, its narrower petals with smaller spots, and a labellum of 'unusual' dimensions. Basing from illustrations of the types of both P. superbiens and P. curtisii, it was surmised that the petals of the former are longer and more oblanceolate (oblong-lanceolate; lanceolate means 'knife-shaped) in shape and are as long as the labellum. However, Mark Wood in 1975 indicated that from his examinations of preserved materials and importations from Sumatra, the types of both taxa are just extreme examples of just one species. In short, P. curtisii is the same as P. superbiens. My mention of P. curtisii here is an essential part of our discussion because it appears that P. superbiens is a variable species. As for P. superbiens being found on Java, Wood explained that in 1889 John Gould Veitch reported it from Mt. Ophir (now Gunung Ledang) in Malaya, despite Charles Lemaire's statement that the Mt. Ophir (now Gunung Talakmau) he was talking about is the one from central Sumatra. This means that P. superbiens is endemic to Sumatra. Probably.
So now P. ciliolare is a 'good' species. It is similar to P. superbiens but otherwise distinct. Again, probably. Below I have attached photographs of the two species' illustrations from Phillip Cribb's The Genus Paphiopedilum (1987). Please take a good look at the shape of the two taxa's staminodal shield shapes, both designated by the letter 'F'.
Staminodal shield shape is a very useful delimiting character in Paphiopedilum and has been used to separate look-alike species such as P. barbatum and P. callosum, and P. haynaldianum and P. lowii. I also used it to demote P. parnatanum to varietal level under P. argus in 2015. In the case of P. ciliolare, the staminodal shield has a peaked shape with three small lobes below, the marginal ones shortly acute and the central lobe shortly rounded.
On the other hand, the staminodal shield of P. superbiens is croissant-shaped, less peaked above, but also with a blunt central tooth beneath.
Now, here's a question for you: what do you think is this plant below? Looking at the petals, it's plain to see that spots are confined to only about two-thirds of the total length of the petals, and the labellum is nowhere near as long as the petals. Notable too are the prominent, dark, raised spots on the upper petal margins. So this could be P. ciliolare.
Or is it? A closer inspection of this plant's staminodal shield reveals that it has the somewhat croissant shape of P. superbiens, albeit the upper portion is roughly horizontal:
How about this one? The petals have spotting throughout its length as in P. superbiens, and the labellum is deeper in comparison to P. ciliolare.
However, its staminodal shield fits that of P. ciliolare:
The person who owns this latter plant inconveniently lost its provenance data, but is said to have surely come from somewhere on Mindanao. And if my memory isn't failing me, Jun may have mentioned that P. superbiens in the Philippines occurs in the same general area where P. anitum is found.
Now what? Our main handicap here is that our sampling is very low- I only illustrated two plants. We do not also have the benefit of proper in situ studies of these species. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that these two plants have traits of both P. ciliolare and P. superbiens, and P. superbiens appears to be a variable plant. I am not implying that these two taxa are one and the same species, nor am I saying that P. superbiens does occur in the Philippines- there's still some creased areas that need to be ironed out. What I am trying to get across here is that the sampling and observations of other authors may have been insufficient too, and that no one has really tried to look into the range of variation of both species to see if their aspects do indeed overlap, especially in the Philippine plants. The current trend- and I am about to go into a soapbox here- is that many of those who study orchids, particularly the current ones, have this inclination to set their eyes toward the description of new species instead of allotting equal or more time in lending a closer look to already named species whose ecology and identity remains gray. Of course, the argument "at least it has already a name" will crop up from time to time as a form of defense for people whose main goal is just to describe new species, and I will agree with that, to a limited extent. But then again, why stop there? In this age where vast tracts of forested areas are being trammeled at horrendous rates, learning about the species' facets are in my opinion, equally important as naming a new species, perhaps even more so. For example, the island of Dinagat is said to be under the mercy of mining companies, but has anyone studied the population of P. ciliolare there? How much do we really know of this species and P. superbiens and what is their range of variation? Do P. ciliolare-like plants also occur on Sumatra? Why is it that P. superbiens appear to have such a disjunct distribution? What should we call these plants with intermediate traits? And how reliable can staminodal shield shape be used in distinguishing taxa within the genus Paphiopedilum, and what species constitute exceptions?
Doubtless that the answers to these and for other plants we know little of will not come from someone like me whose time for botany has ebbed, but hopefully from someone who will take the initiative with enough insight and patience to spend longer time in the forest to learn more about a species rather than merely passing by to see what is found there (and perhaps hoping to discover something new and have it named after himself or to someone with little or no interest with orchids in the first place 😏). Because only then, in my opinion, can botany achieve its noble purpose.
Further reading
Braem, G.J. 1988. 'Paphiopedilum'. Brucke-Verlag Kurt Schmersow, Germany
Cribb, P.J. 1987. 'The Genus Paphiopedilum'. Collingridge Books, England
Wood, M.W. 1975. 'Paphiopedilum superbiens'. Orchid Review 83: 394-399
Comments
Post a Comment