Is this really a Phal. cornu-cervi fma. chattaladae?

[goodgollymissmolly]

Love your handle fatboy! Wish I had thought of that.

Good suggestion but not so easy to do. Since individual orchid plants have no cultivar ID or picture and description unless awarded it's not really easy to get a reliable parentage description from anyone including the breeder. That's why I hate horticultural forms and varieties so much. They are basically meaningless.

There appears to be four red cornu-cervi plants with AOS awards. One has no picture, but the other three have pictures that very much look like the one I posted (bars showing through and picotees). All three of the pictured, awarded plant are owned by well-known, and experienced orchid people and are identified as (1) rubescens, (2) chattaladae, or just plain cornu-cervi. The cornu-cervi is the only technically,botanically correct description.

My point is this. In spite of various internet pictures, no solid red colored "chattaladae" has been awarded in the US. One may exist somewhere, but it is not documented. Meanwhile, those awarded plants (owned by serious orchid folks) look exactly like the picture I posted of a plant bought from Norman Fang who should know his stuff and exactly like the description and picture of "f. sanguinea" in Christenson's book. My conclusion for now is that the picture I posted here is a plant known variously as chattaladae, sanguinea, rubescens, or just plain cornu-cervi and that all those are the same thing. There may be more or less opacity to the red overlay and more or less small or no picotee, but there appears to be no reason to separate these plants for the time being.

This unfortunately is a result of a classification system that is not totally useful to horticulture, but nothing else exists so horticulture persists in inventing names for things without any kind of documentation. It is not likely to change soon.

[dope.fatboy]

Thanks for the compliment.

I see a pretty distinct difference between the awarded chattaladae here

Species Identification Task Force Submissions: Phalaenopsis cornu-cervi f. chattaladae

and the rubescens here

Phal cornu-cervi fma rubescens 'Irma' AM/AOS - Orchid Forum by The Orchid Source

The first showing absolutely no barring and the second showing very conspicuous barring. Both awarded by the AOS and the first being confirmed by the SITF as form chattaladae.

Since this is such a rare form (although being spread out a lot more now) parentage shouldn't be too difficult to confirm from a reputable grower. Although, I can see things getting convoluted since the people selling are often not the people flasking, who are often not the people doing the actual crossing. Still, I would expect a reputable grower to know exactly which parents this particular form comes from. Other forms of other species would certainly be more difficult to determine with certainty, but this one shouldn't be.

[Jayfar]

Here's another data point for the discussion from the Big Leaf forums, regarding known chattaladae blooming in less than solid red. Note too Peter Lin's suggestion that they will bloom more toward solid red when grown in more moderate temperatures with higher light. And of course Robert Bedard is the grower most intimately involved in propagating chattaladae in the US.

Big Leaf Orchid forum - View topic - chattaladae.com

and another post there from Robert Bedard:

Big Leaf Orchid forum - View topic - Phalaenopsis cornu-cervi "red form"

[goodgollymissmolly]

All good points. I am not lobbying for any particular point of view except that this issue is not resolvable at this point in time.

1. Groves apparently is in the camp that chattaladae must be solid red with no bars showing. Interestingly, his awarded clone shows bars in the award photo. So I guess his credibility is questionable at best. That's a surprise to me.

2. Peter Lin named the plant correctly in one of the links y'all supplied namely: Phal cornu-cervi (red). Until one of the forma names is accepted, the color should be specified in parenthesis showing that it is not a part of the name, but instead a descriptive addition.

3. Bedard said that the plant would not be awarded as chattaladae in the AOS system until KEW recognized it. Well, the SITF reference says otherwise...completely incorrectly in my view. I'm shocked that SITF accepted the forma name which is not described or accepted. They should have used Peter Lin's nomenclature. This is not unusual for AOS (see violacea forma coerulea), but repetition of a bad mistake doesn't justify the acceptance of a horticultural name. The award photo is not available yet due to the recent award date, but the small thumbnail in the SITF documentation looks suspiciously like bars showing through to me. We'll soon see when the bigger award pic is published.

4. Peter Lin's suggestion that light and temperature might play a part in the opacity of the red is interesting. My posted photo is of a plant grown in moderate light (probably 2000 fc max, but little exposure that high and moderate temps usually below 80F. but sometimes 85)

5. I probably talked about picotee on my plant too much. I believe the color (a little translucent) is edge to edge with green tips. Groves plant that he claims is chattaladae has more green on the tips than mine.

I'm sticking to the opinion that nothing beyond Cornu-cervi (red) or better (red group) can really be ascertained at this point. If the whole thing is cultural it certainly is not justified to separate the red forms based on opacity. I'm not being argumentative or seeking allies. That's just my opinion and for now I sticking to it.

Interesting subject.

[dope.fatboy]

Thanks everyone for the links. This has been interesting.

@missmolly: In the link above Berard says that chattaladae has been officially described as an accepted color form (KEW's website confirms that this description was published), even if KEW doesn't currently recognize it.

I think, however, that you are absolutely correct that SITF is mistaken in awarding this plant as forma chattaladae. Although that presupposes that KEW is the definitive word, which is an arguable point.

There are many species that are variable to an extent that even within a single population differing conditions can create such distinct characteristics that they can be hard to recognize as the same species (this true of some of the terrestrials). Color variations based on environmental factors shouldn't be recognized as differing color forms. If it is true that barring can appear (even if slight) on plants that have been confirmed as clones of the original chattaladaes then you're probably right.

However, a color form doesn't guarantee anything about the progeny or parentage of a plant. It doesn't say where a plant is from or anything about it's genetics. If I understand the classification system correctly, those would be deemed varieties rather than color forms. So if the lack of barring is consistent throughout the lifetime of the plant I don't have any problems with it having a forma designation.

[goodgollymissmolly]

OK, I think I have to concede that with the synonym listing in KEW that something resembling a properly written description exists. I don't know enough to say how thoroughly it would be scrubbed at this point, but someone must have at least done the Latin.

I'm stuck on Lin's point that the color is culturally variable. These taxonomists are too stuck on being immortalized. They'll describe darn near anything ifnthey think fame is waiting.

I'm disgusted enough with AOS's acceptance of Hort varieties and forms that I'm going to protest. Expect to see McHatton in two weeks and will make my thoughts known. I won't get anywhere but I'll feel better about it.

PS: In this case KEW is the key because AOS by definition follows KEW.....looks like they ignored their own definition.

[peterlin]

Hi all - it's been 5 years since 2006 the re-introduction of this red Phal cornu-cervi to trade. A few years before, 'true' forma chattaladae of Phal cornu-cervi is defined as being solid color. If you get plants distributed by Troy Meyer who got his seedpod from David Grove, or Orchidview who got their plants from the same population, you have the close thing to what Grove described as chattaladae. Unfortunately this solid form has been mixed breed with every cornu-cervi available - the end result is quite confusing. In trade, many would label Phal cornu-cervi (red) by selling a solid red cross with typical form yellow red spots. Few turned out almost solid - most are yellow heavily spotted red. Chattaladae was then rare in trade so few supplies took advantage to label their plants forma chattaladae when in fact the parents used are questionable. We still have taxonomic confusions within Phal cornu-cervi and its related species (i.e. Phal borneensis, deceptrix, lamelagera, pantherina).
In Robert Ang's blog - he wrote in 2010 "There are a lot of orchid nurseries in Thailand selling this specie and many of my friends who bought the thumbpots found out later that they have been cheated. Many turned out to be normal P cornu-cervi with its bars and all and those who are luckier may get a P thalebanii instead. P cornu-cervi fma. chattaladae is only found in Northern Thailand around Chiengmai and it's quite rare. I suspect that the Thai growers cross P cornu cervi 'chattaladae' with a darker form of P cornu-cervi (maybe thalebanii) and if you are lucky you will get a few red form plants, otherwise you will end up with one that looks like thalebanii. "
Many flasks came out of Thailand were labeled red Phal cornu-cervi without further details. Imagine these cross back to cornu-cervi related species.

[goodgollymissmolly]

Thanks Peter. I guess you are telling us that few Chattaladae exist and that many mixed Cornu-cervi are for sale. Also I think you are saying that Chattaladae is solid red and anything else is just a pretender, in some cases deliberately produced from mixed stock and labeled Chattaladae.

Thanks, Jim Lurton, Lexington, KY

[peterlin]

Originally Posted by goodgollymissmolly

Thanks Peter. I guess you are telling us that few Chattaladae exist and that many mixed Cornu-cervi are for sale. Also I think you are saying that Chattaladae is solid red and anything else is just a pretender, in some cases deliberately produced from mixed stock and labeled Chattaladae.

Thanks, Jim Lurton, Lexington, KY

Yes. Chattaladae should be near solid red - no spots, bars, or markings. Although I have not witness this personally, Robert Bedard has observed a small area in lower sepals that is chartreuse due to culture variations (light and temperature).

Big Leaf Orchid forum • View topic - chattaladae.com

[goodgollymissmolly]

Peter again thanks for helping out with this. In reviewing the link you provided, it is interesting that Bedard shows a pic of the awarded clone 'Pravit Chattalata' blooming with white (his description) areas in the lower half of the lateral sepals.

He goes on to say that as a result a solid red color can no longer be used as diagnostic characteristic.

Given the mixed color breeding you mentioned being sold as chattaladae and Bedard's blooming of a known clone of chattaladae with partially white sepals, it seems to me that Groves botanical description may be suspect because the solid red color is not consistent in a known cultivar. Not to be argumentative, but it appears one could reasonably believe that all these red cornu-cervi's are just part of a swarm of red plants blooming inconsistently for some cultural reason and all this splitting of hairs to define them separately is all in vain.

The plant I pictured in this thread is actually better (in terms of red coverage) than Bedard's known chattaladae pictured in the reference link. I have to admit this is giving me a headache. It seems impossible to sort out.