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.