Attachment 10612
Attachment 10613
Attachment 10614
Attachment 10615
Blooming out now this very interesting species. I wrote the lines that follow last year when this plant flowered for the first time for me. So I guess it would be a good idea reproducing them here on OB:
This used to be a controversial species. Pabst described this plant as Cattleya silvana in 1976. There was at the time discussion about whether it was or wasn't the long known natural hybrid between
Cattleya warneri and
Laelia grandis (called x
Laeliocattleya albanensis), both species also occuring where
C. silvana does. Pabst was completely convinced that the plant deserved the species status and described it that way. Because the flowers really have the aspect of a Laelia (section Hadrolaelia) many people kept the species in hold. Dr. Carl L. Withner, in his famous Cattleyas and Relatives book series had initially put it in his doubtful species list, but in 2002, if memory serves me correctly, he finally recognized it as a valid species.
Actually, the plant has a stable population in the wild (Bahia, Brazil), is perfectly recognizable as a separate entity from both
L. grandis and
C. warneri, has a distinct perfume and flowering season, most important of all its flowers have four pollinia, the species breed true from seeds and so on. Considering that the unique relevant taxonomic difference between a Laelia and a Cattleya is the pollinia number (four in Cattleya and eight in Laelia) this plant remains perfectly characterized as a Cattleya species.
Trying to cast some light on the subject, years ago two plants of the alledged parents (
L. grandis and
C. warneri) were crossed by Lou Menezes in the wild in the region of occurrence of
C. silvana. In the interest of the science both parents were brought into domestic cultivation for the pods to mature. At the right time, Orquidario Binot sowed them and the resulting plants (in this case Lc. Albanensis, for sure) flowered similar, but not equal to
Cattleya silvana. I did not see those flowers, but Marcos Campacci did and he says that in fact the flowers were similar but not the same, especially regarding to the color. He, too, considers
C. silvana as a perfectly valid species.
For me, it can nowadays undoubtedly be considered as a valid species irrespective of the possible hrybrid origin. I think that what happens with
C. silvana also happens with
C. dolosa and
C. dukeana: these plants are in the middle of the speciation process, the process that creates new species. I mean, we are witnessing a phase of the formation of a new species in each of those cases. Many now consider
C. dolosa, for just an example, a valid species irrespective of the fact that in the past it may have been originated from a natural hybridization between
C. walkeriana and
C. loddigesii, because (among other characteristics) this plant has a stable, numerous, auto sustainable population in the wild. The same occurs with
C. dukeana which, for me, should not simply be considered a natural hybrid of
C. guttata and
C. bicolor because where it occurs both parents are not even found anymore: the entire auto sustainable population, from seedlings to adult plants, is composed of
C. dukeana. Here again the speciation process shows its face.
The picture of the four pollinia and the anther cap show the perfectly well formed four holes where the pollinia were lodged in leaving no doubt it is a Cattleya, not a hybrid.
Cattleya silvana Pabst
! RHS compilers sometimes really do not know what they say. They have Cattleya silvana Pabst listed with an "x" (it appears like that: Cattleya x silvana Pabst) inducing people who read that to take the wrong conclusion that Pabst would have described it as a primary hybrid. Pabst never did it. Far from that, he described Cattleya silvana as a species after years of serious scientific research. Dr. Withner, who needs no presentation, supports Pabt's work. Why RHS 'authorities' insist with this type of behavior ignoring respected, true taxonomic authorities is a mystery to me.
Linear Mode
