Well, thanks to Mr. James Veitch this is what we should call variety 'alba'. I recognize it is confusing because the flower is not white, but what can we do if that Sir decided for the word 'alba' to describe a colored flower?. Similar thing happens with Cattleya mossiae with white segments and purple lip, to take just one example; that variety should not be called var. semi-alba, but var. reineckiana. So, under a strictly logic point of view, if a name like ‘reineckiana’ can be accepted to define a white flower with purple lip instead of using ‘semi-alba’, why not ‘alba’ to the same kind of flower (the case of this L. purpurata)?
As for for the flower in the photo, Reichenbach tried to change its varietal name, describing it as var. schroederae (plate 1b, Dictionnaire Iconographique des Orquidees, by Alfred Cogniaux-1896) and because of this, still today many people call it variety schroederae. Unfortunately, Mr. James Veitch had described the same plant before giving it the varietal name 'alba' (plate 283, Lindenia). Veitch made a mess assigning the word 'alba' to a colored plant, but now that the thing is done, there's nothing we can do about it! Of course, in horticulture we could well decide that this varietal name is a 'confusing name' and put it aside for some other. I, for my turn, prefer using the described varieties respecting the author's will, but this is just the way I think.
Laelia purpurata var. alba Veitch
Threaded Mode
