Cattleya violacea var. delicata

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by ChrisFL

Was the grower a nursery or private hobbyist?

The grower was a private hobbyist. I looked for him, but he wasn't attending at that moment.

Originally Posted by catwalker808

Wouldn't the flower be a semi-alba?

Technically, not, Catwalker. Most of the so called violaceas semi-alba are incorrectly classified. Or well they are clear types, or striatas or still suaves, like this one. True violacea semi-alba are not that common.

Originally Posted by kavanaru

very nice... I did not know this variety... do you know how difficult this one is? let's say compared to the alba form..

I was talking with other friends in order to get some info on the plant, but was unsuccessful. So, I can't properly answer your question, Ramón!

[catwalker808]

With all respect to you, Rosim, you say that it is technically not a semi alba. I know that the Brazilians have invented many names for color forms that are widely used to describe flowers, but taxonomically many of these classifications do not exist.

I may be mistaken, however, I do not think that "suave" is a recognized taxonomical classification of C. violacea. And your flower is basically white with a pinkish colored lip, which is why I asked whether it was not a semi-alba (I am assuming, of course that semi-alba is a taxonomical classification for violacea)

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by catwalker808

With all respect to you, Rosim, you say that it is technically not a semi alba. I know that the Brazilians have invented many names for color forms that are widely used to describe flowers, but taxonomically many of these classifications do not exist.

I may be mistaken, however, I do not think that "suave" is a recognized taxonomical classification of C. violacea. And your flower is basically white with a pinkish colored lip, which is why I asked whether it was not a semi-alba (I am assuming, of course that semi-alba is a taxonomical classification for violacea)

I said it was not techically semi alba because the flower has sepals and petals of a very sweet, uniform pink coloration that is not quite apparent in the photo. It clearly cannot be classified as semi-alba, because in Cattleyas semi-alba variation is precisely defined, and also it is not typical too. Suave may not be the best, but it is not completely inappropriate.
Just as a side note, taxonomy seems not much interested in orchid varieties. When we invent names for color variations that's because the variations do exist and need a name and by doing this, giving them a name, we are in the horticultural, not in the taxonomic field. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, formal taxonomy does not, or very rarely, recognizes varieties in orchids. Check the Kew's Monocot checklist out and you will see that all described orchid varieties are treated as synomys . I'm not saying that formal descriptions of varieties are not important, on the contrary, but they are mainly in the horticultural field.

[catwalker808]

Rosim. Thank you for the information about the color in the sepals and petals.

I was confused because the sepals and petals in your photo do appear to be white. This is why I was wondering. From your photo I did not see the light coloration. Thank you for explaining that it is there but not so apparent in the photo.

[catwalker808]

Jan.
Please understand. I was not arguing with Rosim about the various technicalities you are discussing above. I am not one to argue about technicalities or semantics. I understand the usefulness of the Brazilians' use of the various forma terms (although I think there are sometimes too many fine distinctions). I use them myself with other people who understand their meanings.

I believe Rosim understood why I asked my question, and I also clearly indicated that I understood his explanation. I do not understand why you quoted my simple statement of understanding to interject your lengthy discourse ... as if I had initiated a controversial discussion. Of course, You are free to interject any comments you wish. I just see no relevance, in this instance, in your quoting my statements. Having said that, I am satisfied with continuing to wonder to myself and I am not really asking for an answer.

As I stated before, the ONLY reason for my asking Rosim about his color designation was that in the photo, the petals and sepals LOOK white. Rosim's explanation that the photo did not show the slight coloration was completely satisfactory to me and I understood.