Laelia purpurata var. virginalis 'Campeã'

[Rosim_in_BR]

Thank you all guys for the kind words you always have to me!

Originally Posted by Jerry Delaney

Really fantastic pictures Mauro! Your culture for these plants is absolutely superb! However, I am confused. As you say, the taxonomy of this species is "complicated" (to me, just plain confusing).
Regardless of what name was given, why isn't this variety a 'delicata' or with the minimum amount of veining perhaps a 'russeliana'?
Regardless of what technical name is given, just plain 'beautiful' is appropriate!

yup, confusing is the word, Jerry. It happened that the average collectors didn't know that Veitch had named the above light colored flower 'alba'. So, when collectors found an albino they start calling it alba, not knowing that technically they could not do it. So, as a mistake never comes alone, when they saw the above flower they called it delicata, again not knowing that it should be called alba. Well, you sleep with this noise! Technically, it is not recommended to call the above plant var. delicata, although it is common seeing it labeled this way. It should most properly be labeled var. alba 'delicata'. There's another famous of the same color named 'Graciana', that should be labeled var. alba 'Graciana'. They crossed the two and started callingn the progeny 'Graciata', when the correct should be var. alba 'Graciata' (my plant above is 'Graciata').
Krackowizer in his Monograph of Laelia purpurata describes a variety called 'delicata' that has the lip like the above, but the petals and sepals are cream, not pure white. Never saw something like this!

[gixrj18]

Originally Posted by Rosim_in_BR

Thank you all guys for the kind words you always have to me!


yup, confusing is the word, Jerry. It happened that the average collectors didn't know that Veitch had named the above light colored flower 'alba'. So, when collectors found an albino they start calling it alba, not knowing that technically they could not do it. So, as a mistake never comes alone, when they saw the above flower they called it delicata, again not knowing that it should be called alba. Well, you sleep with this noise! Technically, it is not recommended to call the above plant var. delicata, although it is common seeing it labeled this way. It should most properly be labeled var. alba 'delicata'. There's another famous of the same color named 'Graciana', that should be labeled var. alba 'Graciana'. They crossed the two and started callingn the progeny 'Graciata', when the correct should be var. alba 'Graciata' (my plant above is 'Graciata').
Krackowizer in his Monograph of Laelia purpurata describes a variety called 'delicata' that has the lip like the above, but the petals and sepals are cream, not pure white. Never saw something like this!

So in the average orchid world, what differentiates an alba from an albina. If I had a white one pop up from a bunch of siblings, how would I know which one to register it as? Thanks, Mauro!

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by gixrj18

So in the average orchid world, what differentiates an alba from an albina. If I had a white one pop up from a bunch of siblings, how would I know which one to register it as? Thanks, Mauro!

If it was not for Veitch having used the word 'alba' to designate a colored flower, everything would be all right and we would have the word alba (white) matching the concept of albino (lacking pigmentation, or white).
So, what differentiates an alba from an albino is that (only in the L. purpurata case) the alba has some color on the lip and is not an albino and the true albino, the all white flower with only a little yellow in the throat, must be called var. virginalis.
So, if you pick a white L. purpurata up from a bunch of seedlings you should label it Laelia purpurata var. virginalis (assuming that you want to be technically correct).

[gixrj18]

Originally Posted by Rosim_in_BR

If it was not for Veitch having used the word 'alba' to designate a colored flower, everything would be all right and we would have the word alba (white) matching the concept of albino (lacking pigmentation, or white).
So, what differentiates an alba from an albino is that (only in the L. purpurata case) the alba has some color on the lip and is not an albino and the true albino, the all white flower with only a little yellow in the throat, must be called var. virginalis.
So, if you pick a white L. purpurata up from a bunch of seedlings you should label it Laelia purpurata var. virginalis (assuming that you want to be technically correct).

What if it's not purpurata? All white is alba, and all white w/ yellow throat is albino? Does this only apply to species, or do these rules apply for hybrids also?

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by gixrj18

What if it's not purpurata? All white is alba, and all white w/ yellow throat is albino? Does this only apply to species, or do these rules apply for hybrids also?

If it is not purpurata, all white flowers, with yellow or not in the throat are 'alba' (alba is a particular case of albinism (albino) which is the general case for the flowers lacking pigmentation). For example, the brown Cattleya leopoldii when appears without the regular pigmentation has the petals and sepals green and only the lip white. It is in the general case of albinism and should more properly be called var. albina, not alba. Take another example, in Sophronitis coccinea when the red pigmentation is absent the flower becomes yellow. It is an albino, not an alba.
Alba should only be applied to the all white flowers (the yellow in the throat is normal in white flowers).
The same with the hybrids. White flowers (with or without yellow in the throat) are always var. alba.

[gixrj18]

Understood...thank you very much! Your info is greatly appreciated!

[Jerry Delaney]

Originally Posted by Rosim_in_BR

If it was not for Veitch having used the word 'alba' to designate a colored flower, everything would be all right and we would have the word alba (white) matching the concept of albino (lacking pigmentation, or white).

Thanks Mauro for the explanations. I knew that "precedence" applied to genus and species but did not realize that it went all the way down to variety. Now, for the real tough question. If they can take this beautiful species and suddenly decide that it is no longer a Laelia but a Sophronitis, why can they not straighten out some of the other naming problems with this plant. After all, I think that most of the rational for changing the name was due to the fact that purpurata may be genetically closer to Sophronitis than Laelia. However, that does not make it a Sophronitis. Golly, man and some of the great apes share most of their DNA. That doesn't mean that humans are apes or vice versa. Nor does it mean that either are descendants of the other. If either were true, man, what an insult to the apes!!

[kavanaru]

Originally Posted by Rosim_in_BR

If it is not purpurata, all white flowers, with yellow or not in the throat are 'alba' (alba is a particular case of albinism (albino) which is the general case for the flowers lacking pigmentation). For example, the brown Cattleya leopoldii when appears without the regular pigmentation has the petals and sepals green and only the lip white. It is in the general case of albinism and should more properly be called var. albina, not alba. Take another example, in Sophronitis coccinea when the red pigmentation is absent the flower becomes yellow. It is an albino, not an alba.
Alba should only be applied to the all white flowers (the yellow in the throat is normal in white flowers).
The same with the hybrids. White flowers (with or without yellow in the throat) are always var. alba.

Mauro, but isn't it that the very correct naming should be as follows:

• Albino: strictly speaking, a plant lacking all kind of pigmentation. Including Chlorophyl, which makes this plants non-viable: variegation, would be a partial case of albinisim. Horticulturally speaking, same as Xanthic (see below)
• Alba/album: is a case of albinisim concentrated only in the flowers (sometimes, the plant itself is paler than normal). Technically, this would exclude flowers with a touch of yellow in the labellum, however they are commonly accepted as alba.
• Albescens: not a true alba, as having some very light toch of colours. In Cattleyas, commonly a delicate pinkish touch (e.g. Cattleya percivalliana 'Caracas')
• Xanthic: when the flowers lack red/purple pigmentation, but yellows and greens are still present. Aurea/Aureum, is another name for xanthic with yellow pigments. (e.g. Phrag. besseae, and many Paphies) Aurea forms, are also called Flavas

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by kavanaru

Mauro, but isn't it that the very correct naming should be as follows:

• Albino: strictly speaking, a plant lacking all kind of pigmentation. Including Chlorophyl, which makes this plants non-viable: variegation, would be a partial case of albinisim. Horticulturally speaking, same as Xanthic (see below)
• Alba/album: is a case of albinisim concentrated only in the flowers (sometimes, the plant itself is paler than normal). Technically, this would exclude flowers with a touch of yellow in the labellum, however they are commonly accepted as alba.
• Albescens: not a true alba, as having some very light toch of colours. In Cattleyas, commonly a delicate pinkish touch (e.g. Cattleya percivalliana 'Caracas')
• Xanthic: when the flowers lack red/purple pigmentation, but yellows and greens are still present. Aurea/Aureum, is another name for xanthic with yellow pigments. (e.g. Phrag. besseae, and many Paphies) Aurea forms, are also called Flavas

Yes, Ramón, your definitions are quite perfect.
Only that on orchids these definitions are commonly applied only to the flowers, not to the plant. It is understandable, once true albino orchids don't survive.
And then, if the true albino definition does not apply, the field is open. As you know, most common colors in orchids - purple, red, brown... - are a combination of two or more kinds of pygments (anthocyanin, carotenoid, clorophyll). Genetic variation can make one, several or all of these pigments be absent (recessive) originating new colors. I know that I am not completely in accordance with pure science here, but I think that in orchids, where these concepts apply only to the flowers, in all those cases where one or more pigments are absent we can call them a general case of partial albinism (lacking a better word).
In some cases, where all the pigments are absent we have the alba variation. The word alba, in Latin and so many other languages, has the precise meaning of white and so this word should only be used to white (some yellow allowed!) flowers. In the case of C. leopoldii, the brown regular color is formed by the presence of all three pigments, anthocianins, carotenoids and clorophyll. When two of them are absent, the anthocianins and the carotenoids, the green clorophyll pygment shows up in the petals and sepals and the lip turns white. In my opinion, we can't call this an alba flower because it is only partially white and lacking a better word I prefer to use albino to designate it (taking into account the concept of partial albinism above), although I know that albino is not correct under a strictly scientific point of view.
In other cases, like in Sophronitis coccinea, the brilliant red color is formed by anthocianins and carotenoids. When anthocianins are absent the yellow of the carotenoid pigments appear. Again, in my opinion, it is a general case of partial albinism. In this cases, as you well pointed out, the flowers are known as xanthotic and we have several terms to designate them - xanthina, flava, aurea etc).
Ramón, I’d like to let clear that the above is only my opinion on the subject and represents an attempt of adapting concepts to our orchid world. I am aware the concept of partial albinism is weak scientifically speaking, but not absurd anyway.
Whas is your opinion?

[gixrj18]

Originally Posted by kavanaru

Mauro, but isn't it that the very correct naming should be as follows:

• Albino: strictly speaking, a plant lacking all kind of pigmentation. Including Chlorophyl, which makes this plants non-viable: variegation, would be a partial case of albinisim. Horticulturally speaking, same as Xanthic (see below)
• Alba/album: is a case of albinisim concentrated only in the flowers (sometimes, the plant itself is paler than normal). Technically, this would exclude flowers with a touch of yellow in the labellum, however they are commonly accepted as alba.
• Albescens: not a true alba, as having some very light toch of colours. In Cattleyas, commonly a delicate pinkish touch (e.g. Cattleya percivalliana 'Caracas')
• Xanthic: when the flowers lack red/purple pigmentation, but yellows and greens are still present. Aurea/Aureum, is another name for xanthic with yellow pigments. (e.g. Phrag. besseae, and many Paphies) Aurea forms, are also called Flavas

When you say the albino is non-viable, are you referring to reproduction? The flowers without pigment can't reproduce? Thanks for the explanation, guys....and do either of you know where to locate literature on all this, I'd like to do some reading!