Sophronitis brevipedunculata!!!
 

Around 8:45 this morning my step-dad came up to my room with a package for me. I knew what it was, but I didn't think it would be here until 10 or 11. I immediately opened it up to find my little Sophronitis brevipedunculata waiting for me. I have been wanting this plant for a few weeks now, and since I got a couple of bucks for Christmas, I bought one. I was a little worried because the temperatures have been in the low 30's and high 20's here at night, and I hoped that it was not frozen. Luckily, it was not. The seller packed the plant really well, wrapping it in cotton fiber, packing peanuts, bubble wrap, and newspaper. There was no way that the plant would have had a bumpy ride. All of that insulation is probably what kept the plant from freezing. Anyways, the plant is so cute. It has six pseudobulbs, 3 without leaves. I am so happy with this purchase, and will definately order from him again very soon. Here are a few pictures of my brevipedunculata.

How cute!!! Such a lucky duck, to be able to get chids in the winter!

I'm so happy that I can get orchids in the winter, but I am always afraid of them freezing. I try to buy species that like cooler temperatures in the winter, so that they aren't really stressed out that much.

Congratulations on your new little guy!
Joann

The seller told me that he got this plant from Binot hence the name Sophronitis brevipedunculata var Binot. I have no clue where this country is, but he said that the plant has blooms that are bigger than average. Up to more than 3". He also said that the flower color is a little different. It's a deep red unlike normal plants that are red to light red. I can't wait to see this plant bloom. I searched it on the Internet, but I can't find anything about this specific surname. If anyone could help find a picture I would really appreciate it.

This is a Cattleya, Sophronitis is a synonym.

Warren

Okay, so this is nothing against you personally, but I just have to get this out. I am pretty sure that most people here on the Board are aware of all these taxonomical changes, especially the ones in the Cattleya alliance. The thing is, frankly, most of us probably don't care what the taxonomists say. For me, I see a Soph. coccinea, a C. bicolor, and a L. reginae, and I say "Gee, these three species look quite different, why the crap are they in the same alliance!?!? Oh yeah, silly me, it's because of some infant DNA testing that was done that lumped some pretty obvious different genera into the mess we know today." This link, Orchid Taxonomy, is an awesome read, and clearly shows why I hate the changes done to the Cattleya Alliance. I do agree that not all changes are bad. There has been some pretty good work done with the lesser studied and quite large Alliances such as the Oncidium Alliance, the Pluerothallis Alliance, and the Maxallarias. But the fact that the first group they targeted, the Cattleya Alliance, which is probably the most known, and clear cut group of genera (other than the Prosthechea group), that is what gets my goat! :(( Sigh, sorry for the rant, I just really needed to get this out! I know there will be lots of people who disagree with me, and sorry for the thread hi-jack! :blushing:

Cute plant. Happy growing.

As a fairly new orchid grower, I find the older naming convention more useful because it helps me guess what the plant will look like and how much light it might like.

I know it's a cattleya, but in my eyes, if it has another name that's what I call it. I'm not trying to be mean, but I believe that's the truth for a lot of people. It's mostly cattleya that this has happened to with the different subspecies, if you will, I would prefer to call them by their subspecies name because you don't see people searching for cattleya brevipedunculata.

Nice cutie pie of a plant you have there. If you google the name:
" Sophronitis brevipedunculata "
there are many flowers that crop up (75 or more)and the one that caught my eye is this picture photographed by Ardisia from Spain in the orchid board named "infojardin"

I have seen this picture as well, but I am not 100% sold that this is a brevipedunculata. If you look at the bulbs on the plant, they are more elongated that a brevipedunculata. Brevipedunculata have small, round pseudobulbs leading me to believe that that plant might be a coccina.

these are photos from IOSPE and Orchids Wiki = elongated and almost flat bulb... yours is a golfball round bulb...
two strikes against your rounded bulb=
so should you question your plant instead?
*three strikes= the Spanish picture is also ovoid shape

IOSPE PHOTOS

A very good reference, should help in this ID.

Warren

Actually if you look Very closely on the picture that you posted you can see that the bulbs are small and round just like the plant that I have. There may be a slight difference between the two plants because mine is var. Binot. Here is a true brevipedunculata picture

WOW!!!! Those pictures are AMAZING!!!

I agree. Now I just need to give it a ton of light so that it turns purple. I don't know what it is with me and having my plants purple, but it's so fascinating. I have a laelia liliputana that is all purple with a little green. Te seller grew it outside al the time. Sadly I cannot do that due to the cold weather. The plant will be purple though. That's my mission.

Well... there are several forms of your plant and variations...and If your tag says Sophronitis brevipedunculata; I beleive you. No need to make it purple: just follow the culture of your plant and post blooms of it in the future and give joy to the others...before I joined OB I used to throw away tags because they were unsigtly sticking out of the pot...that says how little I beleived in names, tags , species...all I ever beleive in is the beauty of the flower that the plant provides...the rest is just politics

Me too! I love it when my plants turn purple and they always reward me with great flowers!

I just love when plants that are supposed to be green turn purple. It's so odd and exotic. I have a couple of other plants that also have the ability to take full sun allowing the plants to turn purple. They are rhyncholaelia digbyana (I have 4 plants) and a Bulbophyllum phalaenopsis. The bulb. phalaenopsis is mainly green, but there is a noticable purplish tinge. One of my digbyana is the same way. The other three have not had the chance to get that much sun because I bought them later in the year, and the sun is not always out. Next year, I would love to give them as much sun as they can take. Who knows they may even bloom better.

It could possibly be a coccinea, as there is some variation in the size, shape, and orientation of the bulb within this species. If I recall correctly, there are actually three forms of coccinea based on the variation of the bulbs and growth habit.

Who did you get it from? That might help determine what it is.

Also, I agree with you on the taxonomy thing. As a horticulturist who keeps up with this, I know they are correctly called Cattleyas, but to me they will always be Sophronitis. Besides, think of the wider repercussions for renaming all those intergeneric hybrids. Does Sl. 'Minipet' now become Cl. 'Minipet'? And does Slc. 'Crystal Smith' now become Clc. 'Crystal Smith', or Cl. 'Crystal Smith', or Ccl. Crystal Smith'?

Cheers.
Jim

Well DelawareJim, the plant that I was talking about in what you quoted was a picture that another member found on the Internet. It is not a plant that any of us have, that I know of.

Also, I agree with you on the taxonomy thing. As a horticulturist who keeps up with this, I know they are correctly called Cattleyas, but to me they will always be Sophronitis. Besides, think of the wider repercussions for renaming all those intergeneric hybrids. Does Sl. 'Minipet' now become Cl. 'Minipet'? And does Slc. 'Crystal Smith' now become Clc. 'Crystal Smith', or Cl. 'Crystal Smith', or Ccl. Crystal Smith'?

To answer your question here is easy, Minipet becomes Cattleya Minipet and "Crystal Smith" is not registered.

Warren

Minipet and Crystelle Smith are both Cattleyas, as all of the species involved in them have been transferred to that genus.

The major problem I see with horticulturists 'striking out on their own' against accepted nomenclature is that since there is no alternate authority being invoked it introduces a great deal of inconsistency and makes what to call a plant essentially up to the arbitrary whim of each grower. All the genera we currently know (Cattleya, Dendrobium, etc.) were described at some point by some taxonomist, so why is it better to accept the determination of a self-educated botanist from the 19th century over one who has access to centuries of literature as well as sophisticated molecular and statistical analysis tools? Science moves on, it doesn't do us any good to fight it, inconvenience of changing labels or no... Just my :twocents: of course, feel free to disregard my opinion! :)

Nice plant, Chris! I hope it grows and blooms well for you.

--Nat

Binot is an orchid grower in Brazil, where C. brevipedunulata comes from.

Great looking little plant you have, Chris. And it's always a relief when a shipment that travels during this time of year doesn't freeze. Can't wait to see some flowers on your plant. I think you probably do have a Sophronitis brevipedunculata (maybe some of our Brazilian members would be kind enough to give their opinions too), as the leaves and pseudobulbs on my Sophronitis coccinea plants look nothing like yours: bulbs are more oblong and tapered on both ends rather than being globular, and the leaves all have a pronounced purple streak on the center of the upper surface covering the midvein.

Steve

Bayard, thanks for that. I know he said it was either a place or a grower. Thanks for clarifying. It must be a special type of this plant because he said the flowers are a whole lot bigger than normal brevipedunculata. He said around 3", which when you look at it on a ruler and compare to the size of the plant is humongous.

"...and I say "Gee, these three species look quite different, why the crap are they in the same alliance!?!? Oh yeah, silly me, it's because of some infant DNA testing that was done that lumped some pretty obvious different genera into the mess we know today."

So what are your credentials for calling the science "infant" and the statement ""pretty obvious different genera" ?

Before you join in some misguided and ignorant internet bitching, you might actually want to understand what was done and why it was done. There is a ton of PEER REVIEWED science available to study. Seems you had no problem with the original grouping of Brazilian and Mexican Laelias together even though mid 19th century taxonomists argued that they were not closely related just because both had 8 pollinia. There was a clear problem with the genus Laelia (type species L. speciosa (grandiflora) a Mexican Laelia). Numerous attempts have been made to address the problem. There were alternatives to the lumping under Cattleya, but if you don't like this I promise you wouldn't like the alternative splitting that was required for another approach.

Rather than join in the rush to ignorance, you need to know that botanical nomenclature is for the science, not for horticulture. Unfortunately for horticulture there is no documented, controlled naming system to support horticulture so it uses the scientific nomenclature system as it should. Why have two? Science will proceed forward as knowledge and analysis systems allow. So be prepared for updates as knowledge increases. Or I guess you could just put a bag over your head and leave the human race as some apparently have chosen to do.

. . .

Wow! Sorry I stirred up such a hornets nest on the nomenclature.

As GGMM correctly pointed out, horticulturists and the horticulture industry are under no obligation to use proper scientific nomenclature in naming plants. We do so for the same reasons as taxonomists and botanists (I am also a proper botanist hence my conundrum with nomenclature), so we know exactly which plant we are referring to. While there may be over a half dozen different "Creeping Jenny", all totally unrelated, there is only one Lysimachia nummularia, and that is why we/the trade use proper scientific names.

That said, if horticulturists and the trade want to keep calling or selling Cattleya coccinea as Sophronitis coccinea, as long as we know what we are talking about, and we all call it the same thing, there are no "rules" that say it can't be done.

I therefore, am of two minds. When I am in my scientific botanical circles, I refer to Cattleya coccinea. When I am with my horticultural circles, friends, and relaxing with my hobby (including OrchidBoard; this is a hobby remember), I refer to Sophronitis coccinea. That in no way means that I am, in any way, restistant to change, sticking my head in the sand, or some sort of Troglodyte as some have alledged. That is simply a reflection of the reality we live in.

Case in point, if you google "Cattleya coccinea", along with the long list of scientific links, the few orchid nurseries that list Cattleya coccinea, such as Oak Hill, link you to their "Sophronitis coccinea" page.

Cheers.
Jim

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

Right. I got that.

The first picture of the S. brevipedunculata in flower that Bud posted looks more like a coccinea to me, similar to my plant. Rounder pseudobulbs and lacking the purple streak in the leaf blade but still looking like a coccinea.

Yours looks like the brev. pictures I've seen; rounder pseudobulbs packed tightly together. I initially thought your were questioning whether or not your plant really was a brev.

It is a very nice plant and one I would love to have in my collection.

Cheers.
Jim