I was looking for P.violacea v malayan. A vendor I know located, and
ordered, one for me. He said his supplier assured him it was P.violacea v
malayan. But the tag says: Phal violacea 'Mentawai' x(Redbank x PPFI). I
had asked about P.violacea v malayan because I had seen a number of photos
identified as this variety, in which the plant semed to be large and quite
floriferous, in marked contrast to other photos I had seen of other
varieties of P. violacea which appeared to be smaller with only a couple
rather non-descript flowers. But Christensen doesn't mention a malayan
variety of P. violacea and he does mention Mentawai as being from a small
island off Indonesia. Is this a case of my vendor being deceived by his
supplier, or a case where subspecific taxonomy is completely messed up (not
too surprising if true), or something else?

Also, I take it that the x(Redbank x PPFI) part of the label indicates that
the plant is a cross of something with something else, but what? Would
Redbank and PPFI be different named clones of the Mentawai variety of P.
violacea? If not, what does this label really mean?

Does anyone have a sense of what can be expected from this plant, both WRT
how it grows and WRT what it will likely provide to crosses made using it
(say with amabilis or schilleriana)?

Cheers,

Ted

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. :-)

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.

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.

Type and variety are not the same thing in a language as loose and
freewheeling as English.

Check out this page in Japanese with lots of violacea varieties.
http://www.phalaenopsis.idv.tw/species/violacea.htm

I was surprised to see so much green in the one they label as Malaysian.
Just below it are some var. Mentawai.

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

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .
I was looking for P.violacea v malayan. A vendor I know located, and
ordered, one for me. He said his supplier assured him it was P.violacea v
malayan. But the tag says: Phal violacea 'Mentawai' x(Redbank x PPFI). I
had asked about P.violacea v malayan because I had seen a number of photos
identified as this variety, in which the plant semed to be large and quite
floriferous, in marked contrast to other photos I had seen of other
varieties of P. violacea which appeared to be smaller with only a couple
rather non-descript flowers. But Christensen doesn't mention a malayan
variety of P. violacea and he does mention Mentawai as being from a small
island off Indonesia. Is this a case of my vendor being deceived by his
supplier, or a case where subspecific taxonomy is completely messed up
(not
too surprising if true), or something else?

Also, I take it that the x(Redbank x PPFI) part of the label indicates
that
the plant is a cross of something with something else, but what? Would
Redbank and PPFI be different named clones of the Mentawai variety of P.
violacea? If not, what does this label really mean?

Does anyone have a sense of what can be expected from this plant, both WRT
how it grows and WRT what it will likely provide to crosses made using it
(say with amabilis or schilleriana)?

Cheers,

Ted

http://www.orchidview.com/gallery3.htm
Has pictures of P violacea 'Red Bank'
and the dark form of the violacea Malayan type I think of when I think of a
Malaysian violacea.

Violacea has been bred in captivity for a long time now. It is one of those
heavily line bred species for which dozens of pure color strains and highly
improved forms exist as opposed to the wild type. The orchidview website
link above also has a picture of the blue one. :-)

It occurs to me that people from the area where violacea is native might
typically separate forms of it based on the islands it is found. Hence many
of the variety or type names that refer to islands in that area but look
just like each other to the lesser trained eye.

"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. :-)

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.

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.

Type and variety are not the same thing in a language as loose and
freewheeling as English.

Check out this page in Japanese with lots of violacea varieties.
http://www.phalaenopsis.idv.tw/species/violacea.htm

I was surprised to see so much green in the one they label as Malaysian.
Just below it are some var. Mentawai.

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

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .
I was looking for P.violacea v malayan. A vendor I know located, and
ordered, one for me. He said his supplier assured him it was P.violacea
v
malayan. But the tag says: Phal violacea 'Mentawai' x(Redbank x PPFI).
I
had asked about P.violacea v malayan because I had seen a number of
photos
identified as this variety, in which the plant semed to be large and
quite
floriferous, in marked contrast to other photos I had seen of other
varieties of P. violacea which appeared to be smaller with only a couple
rather non-descript flowers. But Christensen doesn't mention a malayan
variety of P. violacea and he does mention Mentawai as being from a
small
island off Indonesia. Is this a case of my vendor being deceived by his
supplier, or a case where subspecific taxonomy is completely messed up
(not
too surprising if true), or something else?

Also, I take it that the x(Redbank x PPFI) part of the label indicates
that
the plant is a cross of something with something else, but what? Would
Redbank and PPFI be different named clones of the Mentawai variety of P.
violacea? If not, what does this label really mean?

Does anyone have a sense of what can be expected from this plant, both
WRT
how it grows and WRT what it will likely provide to crosses made using
it
(say with amabilis or schilleriana)?

Cheers,

Ted

"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

"Al" wrote in message
...
http://www.orchidview.com/gallery3.htm
Has pictures of P violacea 'Red Bank'
and the dark form of the violacea Malayan type I think of when I think of
a
Malaysian violacea.

Thanks, that gives me a better sense of what to expect when the plant
reaches blooming size.

Violacea has been bred in captivity for a long time now. It is one of
those
heavily line bred species for which dozens of pure color strains and
highly
improved forms exist as opposed to the wild type. The orchidview website
link above also has a picture of the blue one. :-)

Yes, the blue one may be an inbred or line bred strain of P. violacea f
coerulea that Christensen talks about. It may also be something I will add
to my collection and to my breeding experiments later on.

It occurs to me that people from the area where violacea is native might
typically separate forms of it based on the islands it is found. Hence
many
of the variety or type names that refer to islands in that area but look
just like each other to the lesser trained eye.

You're undoubtedly right in this.

Thanks again,

Ted

I have some phal violacea var. muritoniana seedlings, the largest of which
is in spike (and yes, I'm keeping that one). If you're interested, let me
know. They came from Mick at HBI. They came out of flask around 1/2001 if
I remember correctly.

"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. :-)

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.

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.

Type and variety are not the same thing in a language as loose and
freewheeling as English.

Check out this page in Japanese with lots of violacea varieties.
http://www.phalaenopsis.idv.tw/species/violacea.htm

I was surprised to see so much green in the one they label as Malaysian.
Just below it are some var. Mentawai.

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

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
.. .
I was looking for P.violacea v malayan. A vendor I know located, and
ordered, one for me. He said his supplier assured him it was P.violacea
v
malayan. But the tag says: Phal violacea 'Mentawai' x(Redbank x PPFI).
I
had asked about P.violacea v malayan because I had seen a number of
photos
identified as this variety, in which the plant semed to be large and
quite
floriferous, in marked contrast to other photos I had seen of other
varieties of P. violacea which appeared to be smaller with only a couple
rather non-descript flowers. But Christensen doesn't mention a malayan
variety of P. violacea and he does mention Mentawai as being from a
small
island off Indonesia. Is this a case of my vendor being deceived by his
supplier, or a case where subspecific taxonomy is completely messed up
(not
too surprising if true), or something else?

Also, I take it that the x(Redbank x PPFI) part of the label indicates
that
the plant is a cross of something with something else, but what? Would
Redbank and PPFI be different named clones of the Mentawai variety of P.
violacea? If not, what does this label really mean?

Does anyone have a sense of what can be expected from this plant, both
WRT
how it grows and WRT what it will likely provide to crosses made using
it
(say with amabilis or schilleriana)?

Cheers,

Ted