Phalaenopsis schilleriana and P. stuartiana as one species?
Recently, my attention was drawn to an article which appeared at the Manila Bulletin dated May 2, 2017 and authored by Jim Cootes and Ronny Boos, two personalities whose names are frequently mentioned with regards to the study of orchids in the Philippines. In that article, it was implied that Phalaenopsis schilleriana and P. stuartiana may possibly be one species, with the latter being a variant, as the former was earlier described. It's been years since I talked to these authors about orchids, but if the reverse was true, then I would have advised them that such a supposition is, well, quite absurd. But first, here is a link to the said article:
https://newsbits.mb.com.ph/2017/04/30/the-curious-case-of-phalaenopsis-schilleriana-and-phalaenopsis-stuartiana/?fbclid=IwAR1BMepvNb0W8_ckMBDohUNTMkVaonQY1oxs7bJNDf6v8R2xxbuAUJ3mRHk
What I did notice at the said article is that the authors failed to take into consideration the shape of the callosities of both species, and their distinct phenologies. In P. schilleriana, the fleshy callus is divided into the middle by a very narrow 'valley' and terminated by stout, diagonal protuberances. In P. stuartiana, the 'valley' is comparatively wider, which makes both halves more obliquely oriented. Additionally, the protuberances on this species are more drawn out and thus more horn-like. Calli morphology is one of the most important delimiting factors within the genus Phalaenopsis. If you want to study species from this genus, be aware that it is one of the most basic tenets at your disposal. But going back to the species at hand, you may also notice from the photos supplied here that the base of the side lobes of P. schilleriana form a broad 'U' around the callus, while it is more flaring and forms a wide 'V' in P. stuartiana. These differences may be subtle to most people, but anyone having a keen eye can easily spot the discrepancies.
The two species are also markedly different with their flowering schedules, with P. schilleriana only blooming once a year, which takes place, depending on location and altitude, from February to April. My plants open their buds mostly during April. There is supposedly a population of this species that blooms practically throughout the year, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. By comparison, P. stuartiana blooms more than once a year, with typical plants developing new inflorescences three to four times a year.
Now, there's a slight bump along the road which I would like to address to those wanting to study orchids: I have seen dozens of specimens of P. stuartiana and hundreds of P. schilleriana (my province is schilleriana country), and there are those odd stuartianas whose side lobes are more gently curved at the bases (almost) a la P. schilleriana. Is that enough to warrant a suspicion? To answer that, look at the rest of the plant, including its callus as well as the phenology of this plant. Likewise, there are rebellious schillerianas whose callus protuberances are somewhat longer than usual, but other traits simply point to it being a P. schilleriana, and even schillerianas from the same area don't have the same anomaly. My gist? You cannot draw a conclusion from only a single trait that isn't typical for the species in the first place. Allow for variation but look at the big picture instead of squinting your eyes only on those characters you think might give credence to your speculation and then ignore the rest that says otherwise.
At this point, I would like to draw attention to a phrase in the aforementioned article that says:
"Jim Cootes was able to find a record of a Phalaenopsis schilleriana var. staurtiana being published back in 1882, by the adventurer, author, and explorer Frank Burbidge, in the English weekly paper called The Garden, further underlining our suspicions. It is interesting to note that the illustration accompanying the description of Phalaenopsis schilleriana var. stuartiana shows a white form of Phalaenopsis schilleriana." They ended their article by concluding that in their views, one of these two species should be treated as either a variety or a forma of the other, and that P. schilleriana var. stuartiana is an available name.
I haven't seen the Burbidge paper, but if it is true that the illustration was that of a white form of P. schilleriana, then P. schilleriana var. stuartiana refers only to a white form of P. schilleriana, and P. stuartiana has absolutely nothing to do with it except to share the same name. If anyone out there misidentifies and calls the Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus) as Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, then that plant isn't going to change its identity just because someone misidentified it. Burbidge made an identification mistake- he had a P. schilleriana before him (assuming here that Jim was correct that var. stuartiana is a white-flowered version of P. schilleriana) which he thought was a P. stuartiana- that led to a fault in judgment, and it would be a huge blunder to repeat and dignify the same faux pas by introducing the name back into circulation.
Okay, back to my cave.
https://newsbits.mb.com.ph/2017/04/30/the-curious-case-of-phalaenopsis-schilleriana-and-phalaenopsis-stuartiana/?fbclid=IwAR1BMepvNb0W8_ckMBDohUNTMkVaonQY1oxs7bJNDf6v8R2xxbuAUJ3mRHk
What I did notice at the said article is that the authors failed to take into consideration the shape of the callosities of both species, and their distinct phenologies. In P. schilleriana, the fleshy callus is divided into the middle by a very narrow 'valley' and terminated by stout, diagonal protuberances. In P. stuartiana, the 'valley' is comparatively wider, which makes both halves more obliquely oriented. Additionally, the protuberances on this species are more drawn out and thus more horn-like. Calli morphology is one of the most important delimiting factors within the genus Phalaenopsis. If you want to study species from this genus, be aware that it is one of the most basic tenets at your disposal. But going back to the species at hand, you may also notice from the photos supplied here that the base of the side lobes of P. schilleriana form a broad 'U' around the callus, while it is more flaring and forms a wide 'V' in P. stuartiana. These differences may be subtle to most people, but anyone having a keen eye can easily spot the discrepancies.
 |
| Phalaenopsis schilleriana. Note the curving bottom halves of the side lobes and the short callus protrusions. |
 |
| Phalaenopsis stuartiana. See how the bases of the side lobes are more upwardly oriented? Scroll repeatedly between this photo and the one above until you see the differences. Pay attention too at those longer callus projections. |
The two species are also markedly different with their flowering schedules, with P. schilleriana only blooming once a year, which takes place, depending on location and altitude, from February to April. My plants open their buds mostly during April. There is supposedly a population of this species that blooms practically throughout the year, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. By comparison, P. stuartiana blooms more than once a year, with typical plants developing new inflorescences three to four times a year.
Now, there's a slight bump along the road which I would like to address to those wanting to study orchids: I have seen dozens of specimens of P. stuartiana and hundreds of P. schilleriana (my province is schilleriana country), and there are those odd stuartianas whose side lobes are more gently curved at the bases (almost) a la P. schilleriana. Is that enough to warrant a suspicion? To answer that, look at the rest of the plant, including its callus as well as the phenology of this plant. Likewise, there are rebellious schillerianas whose callus protuberances are somewhat longer than usual, but other traits simply point to it being a P. schilleriana, and even schillerianas from the same area don't have the same anomaly. My gist? You cannot draw a conclusion from only a single trait that isn't typical for the species in the first place. Allow for variation but look at the big picture instead of squinting your eyes only on those characters you think might give credence to your speculation and then ignore the rest that says otherwise.
At this point, I would like to draw attention to a phrase in the aforementioned article that says:
"Jim Cootes was able to find a record of a Phalaenopsis schilleriana var. staurtiana being published back in 1882, by the adventurer, author, and explorer Frank Burbidge, in the English weekly paper called The Garden, further underlining our suspicions. It is interesting to note that the illustration accompanying the description of Phalaenopsis schilleriana var. stuartiana shows a white form of Phalaenopsis schilleriana." They ended their article by concluding that in their views, one of these two species should be treated as either a variety or a forma of the other, and that P. schilleriana var. stuartiana is an available name.
I haven't seen the Burbidge paper, but if it is true that the illustration was that of a white form of P. schilleriana, then P. schilleriana var. stuartiana refers only to a white form of P. schilleriana, and P. stuartiana has absolutely nothing to do with it except to share the same name. If anyone out there misidentifies and calls the Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus) as Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, then that plant isn't going to change its identity just because someone misidentified it. Burbidge made an identification mistake- he had a P. schilleriana before him (assuming here that Jim was correct that var. stuartiana is a white-flowered version of P. schilleriana) which he thought was a P. stuartiana- that led to a fault in judgment, and it would be a huge blunder to repeat and dignify the same faux pas by introducing the name back into circulation.
Okay, back to my cave.
Comments
Post a Comment