Perplexing Purpuratas

[golforchid]

Wonderful Mauro! Thanks for your efforts and the beautiful photos to clarify some Perplexing Purpuratas. I noticed that the coerulea in your photos has striations, but I assume it cannot be considered striata because of the color. I'd love to see you do a whole illustrated article on Laelia purpurata (it will always be Laelia to me) for a publication such as Orchid Digest - the Editor in Chief is Sandra Svoboda oeditor@cox.net
The Orchid Digest Publication
Feliz Natal e ano novo feliz
Martha nee golforchid

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by golforchid

... I noticed that the coerulea in your photos has striations, but I assume it cannot be considered striata because of the color. ....Feliz Natal e ano novo feliz
Martha nee golforchid

Thanks, Martha.
That's perfect, yes. Technically, in these cases color has precedence over striation! But, it is common to find these caeruleas also mentioned as var. striata-caerulea, or var. caeruleo-striata. Not so problematic as long as 'caerulea' is present in the name.
Oh, and they will always be Laelia for me too! I will never be used to Sophronitis...
FELIZ NATAL AND WONDERFUL 2010!

[stitz]

Originally Posted by Rosim_in_BR

Thanks, Martha.
they will always be Laelia for me too! I will never be used to Sophronitis...
FELIZ NATAL AND WONDERFUL 2010!

Thank you for the Holiday wishes, Mauro.

I recently read that L. purpurata is definitely being reclassified as Cattleya purpurata. I will make a note of the specific references here when I see it again.



--Stitz--

[Rosim_in_BR]

Originally Posted by stitz

Thank you for the Holiday wishes, Mauro.

I recently read that L. purpurata is definitely being reclassified as Cattleya purpurata. I will make a note of the specific references here when I see it again.



--Stitz--

Am not so sure, Stitz...! Something must have been done not according to Kew's plan, because they (Kew) have put all these new combinations (Cattleya purpurata, Cattleya crispa, Cattleya briegeri and so on) in the synonymy. So, according to their list, the valid name for the genus is Sophronitis still. The publication renaming all Brazilian Laelias to Cattleya was done in 2008, Kew had more than enough time do reorganize no matter what databases... and didn't do it! Simply had all the new names put in the synonymy... I suspect why...!
Even AOS Orchids magazine has been in silence about this subject (and you will remember that they started discussing how simpler hybrid names would be...).
Taxonomically speaking, lumping all Brazilian Laelias to Cattleya, especially if you keep in the same group the bifoliate Cattleyas, is half a solution if you don't include in the same group the Central American Guarianthes and the modern Rhyncholaelias (former Brassavola) as well. But, by doing this, the new enlarged genus would have to be named Brassavola for precedence issues, and you would loose forever names like Cattleya and Laelia...