Meiracyllium-trinasutum-var-album-2023-04-30 *SITF has confirmed this plant as Meiracyllium trinasutum (White Color Group) (May 2023).

The subspecies var. album has not been validly taxonomically identified for this taxon and therefore cannot be used. The term (White Color Group) is an acccepted designation used to deal with color forms that have no formal description. There are only two species recognized in this Genus, M. trinasutum and M. gemma; M. gemma has a very different flower than this plant; the lip is longer and more narrow; the pronounced beak-like extension of the column is much less pronounced and the throat is bright yellow. M. trinasutum flowers are typically purple.

Posted on Apr 30, 2023

Twelve flowers on three inflorescences on a 33-leaf plant 19-cm high and 14-cm wide mounted vertically covering the front of a small barkless log; leaves elliptical, entire, 3.5 cm wide by 5.0 cm long...

Continue Reading

Pleurothallis-bothros-2023-04-29 *SITF has confirmed this plant as Pleurothallis bothros (May 2023).

The length of the ramicaul is consistent with P. bothros as are the dimensions of the leaf and the large inflated floral bract. The dissected flower photo clearly shows the distinctive, almost teardrop shaped glenion at the base of the lip. Flower measurements of this plant also fit P. bothros. Supporting photos can be found in the OW, IOSPE (with a drawing), and

Posted on Apr 29, 2023

Continue Reading

Pleurothallis-(Acianthera)-boliviana-Bryon-CBR-2023-04-27 *SITF confirms this plant is Acianthera boliviana (Aug 2023)

This plant matches the description of Acianthera boliviana in Icones Pleurothallidinarum XXVI. Flower size at .4 cm is within range of the described (IOSPE) size of .5 cm and the photos are a close match. It matches the line drawing in the IOSPE of A. boliviana (as Pleurothallis boliviana). The flowers of A. boliviana and A. tricarinata are very simliar; but the bracts of A. tricarinata are larger and long enough to cover the entire ovary and extend well out onto the dorsal sepal; whereas, in A. boliviana and this flower, the bracts are much shorter and only partially cover the ovary. This plant also closely matches the flowers of A. boliviana in the OW.

Posted on Apr 27, 2023

Fifty-eight flowers borne on seven erect, distichous, compressed, simultaneously few flowered inflorescences up to 11.7-cm arising through a spathe at the base of the leaf with narrowly acute, condupl...

Continue Reading

Maxillaria-pachyphylla-2023-04-21 *SITF confirms this plant as Maxillaria pachyphylla (May 2023).

Although this plant does not match the photo in Kew's POWO, which shows flattened, ovate pseudobulbs, this plant does match the photo and description of M. pachyphylla in Eric Christenson's unpublished Monograph showing round, elongate pseudobulbs with solitary, rigid, fleshy leaves and large, sessile flowers. The lip is distinctive appearing wider and not pandurate, as seen in the similar species, M. parahybunensis. Supporting photos can be seen in the IOSPE and closely matching plant and flower images in the OW.

Posted on Apr 21, 2023

Continue Reading

Prosthechea-fragrans-2023-04-16 *SITF has determined this plant is Prosthechea chimborazoensis, not Prosthechea fragrans (May 2023).

This finding is based on correspondence received from the Montreal Botanic Gardens. The plant was previously identified as P. chimborazoensis from 1959 to 2008, but changed the name when it was considered synonymous with P. fragrans by Kew's Orchid Checklist; it was not returned to the correct name when Kew segregated the species into two separate taxons. The plant was wild collected in Ecuador by Jose Strobel in 1956 and identified as Epi. chimborazoensis by Garay in 1959. The major distinguishing feature separating the two species are spots on the sepals and petals on P. chimborazoensis and this plant; P. fragrans is whiter and devoid of spots.

Posted on Apr 16, 2023

Continue Reading

Luisia-cordatilabia-Irene-CBR-(Provl)-2023-04-15 *SITF confirms this plant as Luisia cordatilabia (Jun 2023).

This is correct based on flower size and cordate shaped midlobe, as described in Cootes' "The Orchids of the Philippines" with an excellent match to the photo. The species is also described in the Quisumbing's 1981 "Philippine Orchids, Vol 1 and 2" in Latin and English; there is also a painting of L. cordatilabia that closely resembles this plant.

Posted on Apr 15, 2023

Continue Reading

Dendrobium-bilobum-Irene-CBR-(Provl)-20234879-2023-04-15 *SITF has confirmed this plant as Dendrobium bilobum (May 2023).

Although this Section of Dendrobium is poorly understood, the preponderance of characteristics places this plant within Dendrobium bilobum. Schlecter commented in the "Orchidacea of German New Guinea" that there is hardly any other section in which the distinguishing features of the species have presented such insuperable difficulties as this one. The most important characteristics in this Section seem to be the size of the leaves and their various parts, length and shape of the mentum, width of the petals and most importantly the shape of the lip. Schlechter also said that most of the individual species within Section Monanthos are inter-related and it is not easy to distinguish them. The leaves on this plant are a better fit to D. bilobum than to the closely allied species, D. erectifolium, which has much longer leaves than D. bilobum. This plant meets the description as detailed and illustrated in Lewis & Cribb's 1991 book, "Orchids of the Solomon Islands and Bougainville", although the flower size is large for D. bilobum.

Posted on Apr 15, 2023

bilobum vs erectifolium vs other ??

Continue Reading

Cischweinfia-parva-2023-04-04 *SITF confirms this plant is Cischweinfia parva (Apr 2023).

This plant meets the description and drawings of C. parva in the Selbyana 25(1) 2004 article by Dressler, "A synopsis of Cischweinfia". C. emarginata, C. horichii and C. chasei are synonymous with C. parva and differ in minor characteristics, like number of flowers per inflorescence, flower size, and color of lip markings; the measurements on the SITF form appear to be incorrect for the pseudobulb size and were not used in identification; the spacing of 1cm between pseudobulbs does appear correct and using this as a measurement, the pseudobulb size and shape, the leaf shape and the flower form and size fits C. parva; supporting photos of C. parva are in the OW and IOSPE.

Posted on Apr 4, 2023

Continue Reading
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12