"Al" wrote in message
...
Read halfway down page 163 of Christenson's book for information of about
the Malaysian type of violacea as it is contrasted with the Borneo type.
In
short, the Malaysian type is the solid rose purple and the Borneo type is
what Christenson (and almost everybody else) considers separated into the
species called P. bellina. By this reckoning, if it is not a bellina it
is
a Malaysian type. :-)

Hi Al,

Thanks.

I did read this, but having done a search using google, I saw a number of
images identified as precisely P. violacea v malayan. I assumed, therefore,
that Christensen was talking about something different. As you noted below,
type and variety are not the same thing.

On rereading Christensen's treatment, I get the impression that the
subspecific taxonomy is somewhat confused, and that it isn't helped by the
close relationship between violacea and bellina, not to mention the
distinctiveness of the population on Mentawai!

Redbank and PPFI are probably clonal names for the two parent violaceas
used
to make your seedling and there should probably be single quotes around
both
names. Perhaps the vendor can ask his supplier for information about the
two parents. Perhaps 'PPFI' is a shortened form of a longer clonal name.


Thanks.

No matter what, I suspect you have a Malaysian type violacea, which is to
say it will be a solid rose purple to purple flower, fragrant, summer
blooming with perhaps just a hint of a green border around the petals.

While I know violacea is not supposed to be very floriferous, what would
happen to flower count and type of inflorescence (i.e. raceme vs panicle),
if it is crossed with a species such as schilleriana that has a high flower
count and a highly branched panicle?


Not everybody subscribes to the same taxonomists version of species
divisions.

Tell me about it. I have experienced considerable frustrations with
taxonomists as an ecologist (so horticulturalists aren't the only people who
find taxonomists frustrating :-), and have often found that there are often
more opinions about the correct taxonomy of a given taxon than there are
taxonomists who have analyzed it; and all too often they are unable to
justify their classifications to a fellow biologist. I sware some of these
taxonomists are quite irrational. I know this doesn't have much to do with
orchids, but if you take a wild goldfish (it will actually seem to be
misnamed since it will be a muddy olive colour) and place it beside a common
carp, you and everyone else who sees them would say they're the same thing.
In fact, only an icthyologist who specializes in the taxonomy of these fish
could distinguish them, and even then the distinction can be made only by
dissecting the fish and counting the pharyngeal teeth. They interbreed
readily and have identical ecologies. A normal, rational scientist would
place them in the same species. However these "taxonomists" have placed
them in different genera! If there is an icthyologist out there who
questions my word on this, I suggest you take a look at the book Scott and
Crossman wrote years ago on the freshwater fish of Canada. Scott and
Crossman are, or were, among the most preeminant icthyologists in Canada,
and the book to which I refer is a standard reference. When I see such
nonsense, I am a little more than half inclined to see taxonomists more as
stamp collectors than as real scientists.

Cheers,

Ted