Cattleya maxima?

[TedM]

I obtained this orchid from the hobby collection of a fellow who passed away. His wife told me that he exclusively grew species plants - almost no hybrids.

Unfortunately, his cataloging system went with him - wife had no idea which orchid was which.

To me, this one looks a lot like C. maxima. Blooms are all about 4" - 5" across (10 - 13 cm)

Thoughts?

[isurus79]

I think you can safely label that one as Catt. maxima.

[euplusia]

The coloration of the lip and the flowering season make me doubt to call it a maxima. Maybe a hybrid made of maxima,

[Cattleya17]

It looks like a Laelia purpurata Maxima Mix to me! it is for sure related to Cattleya maxima in some way!

[isurus79]

Its got a bit of a cupped shape, but those stripes would not be as distinct in a hybrid. I could be wrong though!

[Cattleya17]

I see what you mean! That has maxima written all over it. Maybe it's some kind of a genetic mutation?
The lip veins/details say maxima but the lip is larger and not as tubular as maxima. It was the petals and sepals made me think it had purpurata in its background,as well as the growth. The leaves are erect, maximas have that curve in the leaves.

This is very interesting!! I too would label it as a Maxima it's close enough lol

[isurus79]

You're definitely right that the lip is not quite as tubular as many maximas!

I'd love to see a follow up picture to see if the shape of the flower has changed with time. I'm guessing these pics were taken pretty soon after the flowers opened?

---------- Post added at 08:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

Here's a picture of my maxima for comparison, which is a pretty ordinary looking tipo. Its a highland variety though, so the plant is much shorter than most maximas:


Cattleya maxima by Isurus79, on Flickr

[TedM]

First, let me thank all of you for the excellent discussion. Very informative.

I'm posting extra photos as requested by isurus79. These blooms have now been out for a while, so we can assume they are mature. Last photo shows the whole plant on the wall in my back yard. As you can see, the plant has relatively short pb's and leaves, so must be the upland version.

I think part of the problem was that the earlier photos were taken at an angle that showed the interior of the lip. These new photos are top and side views, showing more of the flower shape. The lip looks more tubular in these, but still doesn't match isurus79's reference photo.

When I Google "Cattelya maxima" and go to "images," I see lots of variation. Some maximas don't look much like my orchid while others are almost an exact match. Guess there was a lot of variation - upland, lowland, and within each.

Perhaps I'll never know for sure, but at least I'm satisfied that, even if it is a cross, it has lots of maxima in it.

I'm going to label it C. maxima for my collection. No chance I will ever use it for propagation, so even if it's is the wrong label, there shouldn't be any harm done.

Thanks again.

PS - Next I'm going to post some photos of a mystery Angraecum!

[King_of_orchid_growing:)]

Part of the reason why people are so used to orchids looking very much alike with one another is because many of them are either divisions from 1 mother plant, or they were mericloned.

Sometimes people forget that when mother nature does her work, there are tons of variation within a species.

I'm not sure whether your Cattleya really is a C. maxima or not, but maybe you can have it tested by a geneticist who'd be willing to help you out. From what I understand, it's not terribly expensive to do it.

[Leafmite]

Oooh, the angraecum should be fun.