Cattleya maxima - upland ecotype

[PrizeCollector25]

I dont understand, im not able to see the pictures where are the pictures? Thanks!

[Rosim_in_BR]

[QUOTE=Intruder;150273]Sorry Rosim, but the pictures do not appear on my screen? Where are they? I am very interested by this subject because mine is also in flowers.

Now the flowers are a little bit more open.
QUOTE]

Here are the photos:

[ikabaru]

several years i had gotten a c.maxima 'alba' awarded' Hcc/aos i thought it should be an am,most people have never seen a s/a maxima in person.before Drago died he had given me several albas pieces,i am willing to donate a 3 bulb division,any one who knew Drago know what he had. ai had bought most of his good stuff,perhaps the aos can come up witha good idea for the alba. p, von scholl

[ikabaru]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Cattleya maxima is common in the U.S. and Canada in both the upland and lowland varieties. Both are spectacular and desireable. Thanks for the pictures!

Dear. AOS judge why dont you come up with quiz for the panel the right answer gets the plant. I will donate a piece of c.maxima 'alba'

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by lueddemanniana

Dear. AOS judge why dont you come up with quiz for the panel the right answer gets the plant. I will donate a piece of c.maxima 'alba'

What exactly do you have in mind?

[ikabaru]

Dear Phantasm, what i'm saying is as a new member i will donate a small plant of c. maxima ' alba' that drago gave me before he passed away i have several pieces. I dont have a present photo of the one i got awarded in1199 but i do have the slide.Forums are great but you have to make it interesting. Maximas are hard to grow they need a lot of sun light,as you know the best ones are from Ecuador, there are a lot of senior bembers who can do something creative for the online viewers..eg orchid question, the right answer get the plant. eg did you know that c.dowiana when in bloom the flowers can be different, true or false.

[ikabaru]

[QUOTE=PrizeCollector25;150325]I dont understand, im not able to see the pictures where are the pictures? Th
anks![/QU Dear Prize collector i dont have a upto date pic only the awarded slide from the aos, however you can see a picture in the aq of 11/99

[orchideric]

Dear Mauro,

Just a few comments. The record of Cattleya maxima for Colombia is highly dubious. It is listed with a question mark (?) in Ortiz's checklist.

The name maxima referes to the flowers, not the plant. The type specimen at the British Museum has loose flowers and a leaf without a pseudobulb. After it came into cultivation, Lindley remarked on the large flowers which were a full "7 inches across".

Finally, to David, don't call ther short, darkly pigmented population an "alpine" variety. It grows between 1200-1400 m which translates in horticulture to intermediate to cool-intermediate temperatures - not cool, cold, or anything approaching alpine conditions.

To my knowledge, the short, dark phase only comes from Peru. It will grow in Florida if a litte care is given during the more beastly summer months.

Hope that helps, Eric

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by orchideric

Dear Mauro,

Just a few comments. The record of Cattleya maxima for Colombia is highly dubious. It is listed with a question mark (?) in Ortiz's checklist.

Well, I recognize I don't have first hand, field experience in Colombia and have to trust other's info. I have been including Colombia when I mention this species because the vast majority of the sources I know lists it for that country. And as you say, if it is dubious for Colombia, this still means that it is not proved that it doesn't occur there, isn't it . Anyway, we have to favor the precision and your mention is much appreciate.

Originally Posted by orchideric

The name maxima referes to the flowers, not the plant. The type specimen at the British Museum has loose flowers and a leaf without a pseudobulb. After it came into cultivation, Lindley remarked on the large flowers which were a full "7 inches across".

Hope that helps, Eric

Allow me to diverge here. The idea that the epithet 'maxima' refers to the flowers has sometimes been mentioned as a paraphrase of Veitch's "the specific name 'largest' is scarcely appropriate as most of the labiata varieties have still larger flowers." (A Manual of Orchidaceous Plants, Vol I - Epidendreae, page 45 - 1887). That was just Veitch expressing his opinion, a comment he made in the middle of a monumental work.
I prefer to follow the authors who believe the idea behind the epithet 'maxima' refers to the size of the plant, which is, actually, the tallest of all unifoliate Cattleyas, like Dr. Carl L. Withner, who needs no presentation at all. Says he in his book The Cattleya and Their Relatives - Volume I -The Cattleyas, page 92: "It is named not for its large flowers as Veitch questions, but because the lowland race of plants is vegetatively tall, greater than any of the other monophyllous cattleyas in size.The upland types are of usual cattleya size, not out of the ordinary, but the original specimens were the lowland sorts, thus the name was appropriate." - My highlight.

[orchideric]

Dear Mauro,

Sorry, but you are just wrong about maxima being named for the plant size. Again, Lindley never saw a plant when he described it (1833). He does not mention a pseudobulb and only describes the leaf as "oblongum, angustum, carnosum, utrinque obtusum" (oblong, narrow, fleshy, obtuse to both sides). The type specimen was from the lowlands at Guayaquil and the one leaf is about 18 cm long, on the small size actually for the lowland kind.

Lindley starts his description with "Flores maximi" leaving little doubt as to the origin of the species name.

The record for Colombia appears to be based on an extrapolation from a drawing published by Dunsterville and Garay in their Field Guide for Venezuela. That record is also questionable and may or most likely was based on a cultivated plant not from Venezuela.

Eric