Cattleya silvana Pabst

[Rosim_in_BR]

Guido Pabst described Cattleya silvana in 1976 as a meritorious species. A controversy has aroused because some people said that in the same area Lc. x albanensis, a natural hybrid between Laelia grandis and Cattleya warneri also occurs and it would be possible that C. silvana of Pabst be the natural hybrid, they say. Due to the initial controversy, Dr. Carl Withner placed it in his doubtful species in his first book on Cattleyas, but later, in 2002 if I am not mistaken, he finally recognized it as a meritorious, full species. Besides this, Kew continues to quote Cattleya silvana Pabst as a synonymous for Lc. x albanensis. Go figure.

Here are the flowers:
Cattleya silvana Pabst on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And here's one in close up:
Cattleya silvana Pabst on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[CoolPhrog]

[Sandy4453]

[SP2340]

What a beautiful shape!

[dgenovese1]

Hi Mauro,
This is quite a beautiful plant/blooms!

I read that according to KEW, Sc. albanensis is the accepted species for C. silvana. I take it that this is the natural hybrid you had mentioned on the Flickr site?

I guess sometimes these debates can go on for quite some time...natural hybrid or distinct species.

[camille1585]

This one is just so gorgeous, there are so many blooms on it! And I love love the color!

Hopefully it's name will get straightened out one day, but I am very doubtful that there will ever be a day were scientists actually all agree on the same thing!

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by camille1585

This one is just so gorgeous, there are so many blooms on it! And I love love the color!

Hopefully it's name will get straightened out one day, but I am very doubtful that there will ever be a day were scientists actually all agree on the same thing!

Agree, Camillle! It seems impossible for them to look at the same direction!

[Swamper]

WOW another one from the drool collection

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by dgenovese1

Hi Mauro,
This is quite a beautiful plant/blooms!

I read that according to KEW, Sc. albanensis is the accepted species for C. silvana. I take it that this is the natural hybrid you had mentioned on the Flickr site?

I guess sometimes these debates can go on for quite some time...natural hybrid or distinct species.

David, Lc. x albanensis is the natural hybrid between Laelia grandis and Cattleya warneri which sometimes appears in the wild (Bahia State, Brazil). Kew has been mistakenly assuming that Cat. silvana of Pabst is actually this natural hybrid described by Rolfe in 1893. It happens that Cat. silvana has a population in the wild, not one or two occasional individuals. Years ago I had the pleasure to meet Edmundo Silva, discoverer of so many new species like Encyclia fowliei, Epi silvanum, Bifrenaria silvana and many other, and after whom this species was named. He has deep field knowledge of the region where C. silvana occurs. He lives there. He states that in the wild C. silvana has a population and that the plants of this population are perfectly recognizable and distinct plants from those of L. grandis and C. warneri, even without flowers.
Times ago the cross between L. grandis and C. warneri was artificially made (by Florália or Binot, I am not sure now) and the resulting flowers had no resemblance with C. silvana. I personally did not see these flowers and I am saying this based upon my conversations with Marcos Campacci, who saw many flowered plants of this artificial cross. He has the same opinion; the artificial cross is not the same thing as the plants of C. silvana.
Finally, Cattleya silvana always has four pollinia, like any other Cattleya. If it were a hybrid, it would be reasonable to expect some plants with six pollinia.
What some taxonomists seem not to take into account is that when we look at the species in the wild we can only see a frozen moment of the natural history. It seems to me that they place things on a 'it is'/'it is not' basis forgetting that evolution takes place everywhere and every moment. This means that in this particular moment we are looking at the natural world we see perfectly stable and well defined species, not so stable species, transitional species and also plants that have just found their way to be new species. It is perfectly possible that C. silvana has started its way as a species based upon two other distinct species, or in other words, that it has started as a hybrid which in time found its own identity, found its own pollinators, formed its own population distinct from the original parents. This is what also happens with Cattleya dolosa, Cattleya duqueana, Cattleya mesquitae to mention a few. All these found their own ways to be distinct species, as this is what they actually are. They have a population in the wild and don't depend on the original parents anymore to continue their evolutionary path. For me, this perfectly defines an independent species.
Sorry for the long post. This is only an opinion of a non-scientist.

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by Jan Pahl

Hi Mauro, beautiful and interesting plant you have there.

Can I ask you some questions.

- Can you please take a photo (not have to be professional) of the flower column

- Also, can you please count on the taller pseudobulbs how many internodes have between the base of the psudobulb and the last one please?.

and one last

- Can you tell me something about the pseudobulb and leaf size?...

Thanks a lot and sorry for the inconveniences
Jan

Yes, of course, Jan.
Nodes, always thee, no mater the pseudo bulb size.
Pseudo bulb 19-20 cm tall (the tallest I have in my plant)
Leaf 35-37 cm long.
Column: 2.5 cm long
Lip (from the column foot until the midlobe tip): 7 cm.
Pollinia: always four in well defined holes (no signs of atrophied pollinia or holes)




Mauro