Aphrodite or Amabilis? You decide.

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

Originally Posted by OrchidSue

It depends on the taxonomist and if you are a lumper or a splitter. Some consider aphrodite as a variant of amabilis, some consider aphrodite a separate species. I don't know that any DNA studies have been done.

Susan

Oh...

Well then, I think this question needs to be answered.

They've done DNA analysis of the Huntleya clade and did a massive restructuring of that family, they should do it for the genus Phalaenopsis.

It'd be interesting to see what they find!

[cneos]

I am not a taxonomist or botanist but a resource that I go to frequently is Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia
Here's the references:
* !Phalaenopsis amabilis [L.] Blume 1825
* Phalaenopsis amabilis var aphrodite [Rchb.f] Ames 1908 - See Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862
* Phalaenopsis amabilis var formosana Shim 1921 - See See Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862
* Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862 (section points out some of the structural differences between amabilis and aphrodite to which you referred.)

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

Originally Posted by cneos

I am not a taxonomist or botanist but a resource that I go to frequently is Internet Orchid Species Photo Encyclopedia
Here's the references:
* !Phalaenopsis amabilis [L.] Blume 1825
* Phalaenopsis amabilis var aphrodite [Rchb.f] Ames 1908 - See Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862
* Phalaenopsis amabilis var formosana Shim 1921 - See See Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862
* Phalaenopsis aphrodite Rchb.f 1862 (section points out some of the structural differences between amabilis and aphrodite to which you referred.)

Jay Pfahl's site is good in terms of identification, but I'd cross reference that material with several other materials to make sure.

I'm not saying he's completely off base, but there are times when he's incorrect (he's human after all).

Then there's the question of which name takes precedence and which one is valid.

With the naming of orchids, taxonomists always seem to be re-ordering things. The date the name was conceived is deceiving, sometimes the older name is valid and the newer name is no longer valid. Other times, the older name is invalid and the newer name is valid.

For now, until they come up with some DNA evidence, I'm on the boat that they're separate species.

Although, it's not inconceivable that they're just variants of the same species.

Like I said, for now, to me they're separate.

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

I wanna mention that there's also two different views on the taxonomy of Phal bellina and Phal violaecea, which goes along with what's being discussed now.

As was mentioned, perhaps some DNA testing is in order, idk.

[cneos]

To my knowledge, Jay is not a taxonomist or botanist either. As he says in the DISCLAIMER,
"This site is compiled from photos collected from growers or photo collectors around the world and I rely on them to try to be sure of their identification. As we all know, however, many plants are mislabeled and growers and collectors can't know all species in every genera, so please be advised that to the best of out knowledge the following ID's are correct. Many species herewith have been scrutinized by taxonomic experts and will be correct, but this may not be true of all the species described. If you have any questions as to the veracity of any species described in this encyclopedia please e-mail me Jay Pfahl at jfal@sprynet.com and we will work at correcting the mistake. As to the text it is compiled by culling notes from hundreds of books and publications [See Bibliography and source books] but it too can be wrong in part due to my mistake or in the often conflicting reports on various orchids."

This suggests that if we really NEED to have a positive id, we should be looking at ALL the historical literature, drawings etc that are out there and to new technologies, like DNA testing.

[Izzie]

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out.

[cneos]

There's been so many re-classifications and name changes that have occurred lately that it's a good thing that AOS and RHS recognizes synonyms and uses both in their publications.
Until the new names are ACCEPTED by the masses, I will refer to my orchids as named when I got them (or as ubsequently identified). I'd rather spend the time caring for/enjoying 300+ plants than writing new labels for them ...

[ronaldhanko]

Christenson considers them separate species and says:
"in addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis only recorded from the southern Philippines, their callus structures are distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which is divided into only two teeth. The species in the section Phalaenopsis with a callus most similar to P. aphrodite is P. sanderiana."

[Izzie]

This is really turning out fascinating.


That said- anybody have any tips for photographing orchids? I mean, I just have a little Canon Powershot SD-1100. Any constructive criticism?

[ronaldhanko]

Originally Posted by Izzie

This is really turning out fascinating.


That said- anybody have any tips for photographing orchids? I mean, I just have a little Canon Powershot SD-1100. Any constructive criticism?

Hi Izzie,
I have an article on photographing orchids in the Member Articles section, but a couple of things will help immensely - a plain background, a bit of supplemental lighting,and a simple reflector made of tinfoil crumpled , flattened and put over a piece of stiff car. For a plain background anything from a plain wall (but keep the flowers far enough away that you don't get sharp shadows) to a bedsheet to a piece of velvet cloth from a fabric store will do. For supplemental lighting anything from a bright window to a clamp-on work light (though with the later you may have to adjust your settings - incandescent light is a different color than daylight),and the reflector for making sure that you can get some light in parts of the flower that would otherwise be to dark (you might have to have someone hold it for you.).