P. Species ID:

[weiss]

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the commonly confusing phal. species names? For example, P. deceptrix is actually P. lamelligera and both are under the cornu-cervi group. Robin has said that in Europe everyone refers to this plant as lamelligera, and never deceptrix. Many people in this country call this plant deceptrix. I'm wondering if someone would be willing to offer up a list of examples like the one above? I'm not really trying to find a final answer on the subject, but a list of the ones that are similiar. I tired of buying plants and then finding out that I already have the same plant labeled with an alternative name.

The list would read something like: P. lamelligera & deceptrix=same

[dennis]

here are 2 links to some info they are 2 different plants

deceptrixinfo

lamelligerainfo

[weiss]

Thanks for the link, but that in no way addresses my question?

[dennis]

if it is a species then it will only have one name
P. lamelligera is not a P. deceptrix they do have similar appearance but are different. so i guess i am confused two. if a grower is calling a plant other than what it is then i would suggest buying from a diffferent grower. P. cornu-cervi is another species that is different in it's own way compared to the 2 above all three are similar in appearance as far as color goes. thier region in which they are found is different as well a Phalaenopsis inscriptiosinensis and a Phalaenopsis hieroglyphica are very similar in appearance but again are two completely different plants as well as different regions in which they are found but were originally considered as Phalaenopsis lueddemanniana or a cross of it but is no longer considered the same as region and flower are totally different. another two that are close are pulchra and a violacea but are no where close to the same except some appearance. so if this is what you are asking then what you are calling the same would be entirely up to you in your preference in looks and in color and anyone else trying to address this would only be thier prefernce in calling one something else due to similar appearance it would be like calling a amabilis a aphrodite which is done alot but once again two totally different plants. the only time a true species will have a another name to it that i know of is if it was awarded and the owner gave it a seperate name as to identify the awarded plant from another. now a violacea from malaysia is totally different from a violacea from borneo to the point as one from borneo is now considered a bellina

[Rick Barry]

The only way to sort out any genus is to buy an illustrated monograph on that genus. While nothing is really final in taxonomy, a monograph provides one taxonomist's breakdown of the genus at a given moment in time. Such a monograph invariably points out which species are being debated as to their validity. For all practical purposes the hobbyist can assume that, to the non-taxonomist, the differences that distinguish such debated species render them nearly identical.

When researching Phalaenopsis, I use Eric Christenson's Phalaenopsis: A Monograph as my primary reference. He doesn't even mention deceptrix, but his discussion of cornu-cervi would lead you to assume that he would simply include deceptrix as a form of cornu-cervi, if he would accept it at all. That's what he does with P. lamelligera. The message here is that cornu-cervi is highly variable, and to most of us its various named forms will appear to be almost identical.

Regards,
Rick