The reality is that stonei var. platytaenium is simply a peloric stonei. If you look at the following picture :

http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/exhibitions/johnday/images/med/jds_23_063.jpg


The petals are cupped, and have some part of the pouch color...

Now, this is a peloric sanderianum

http://iweyshen.myweb.hinet.net/sp-Polyantha/sanderianum/sanderianum-TN-ThreePouch.jpg

Very similar to the platytaenium.

Conclusion that no one ever though about :

P.stonei var. platytaenium is simply a peloric stonei !

Cool looking photo regardless!

very interesting thought. not sure you can conclude it based on that drawing but who knows if artistic rendition was used.

Well....it is an interesting thought but I am not exactly convinced.
And that's (well I never expected to be saying this!) the most horrid sanderianum EVER!

That extra pouch thing freaks me out.

I just don't know...I wouldn't be willing to jump off a cliff for the idea, that's for sure!

Heather, I thought it was an extra pouch as well, but I looked closer. I think it has two blooms, but the photo makes it look like the pouch from the second flower is attached to the leaf of the flower in the foreground..

Susan, I guess I see what you are saying, but man, that is one ugly sand either way!
Are we sure this wasn't shopped? I'm sorry, papuanum - must ask...in this day and age. No offense intended - just the truth!

There was an article in Orchid Digest about P. platyphyllum as a species rather than as a variety of stonei.

The old print/drawing shown in the above post, I think was also in that article.

There may be some confusion (at least I'm confused) that the stonei var actually exists or has been confused with platyphyllum, or if platyphylum should even be considered a separate entity from kolopakingii.

What I could figure out is that a good case was made that platyphyllum is a good species, and if var platytaeneum ever existed it was probably a lost hybrid, or a screwed up interpretation of a platyphyllum. :confused: :confused:

I can verify that it is not likely photoshopped, here is another picture:

http://www.phytosophy.org/forum/uploads/post-13-1120871430.jpg

very cool it has 3 pouches! :D

http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/exhibitions/johnday/images/med/jds_44_013.jpg

Also, is it possibly an integrade between P. Morganiae and stonei?

I'm glad we have a few OGs here, because I am getting a good education....thanks for the info

And here is another fake stonei latifolium. It is the "true" platyphyllum self x self x selfing....

http://iwasaki1.sub.jp/public_html/z84.jpg

All those platys... they must be nearly homozygeous by now!

Something makes me think they have remade the platyphyllum, using a few different versions, one of them being an albino as the original, and the regular varieties released later.

Compare the original platyphyllum 'Ruth Kennedy' with some other platyphyllums floating around:

ORIGINAL
http://www.orchid.gr.jp/images/paph_sp/polyantha/stonei/stonei_latifolinum.jpg

LATER SELFINGS
http://www.orchid.or.jp/orchid/people/tanaka/orchid/org/shinshu/photo/platy1.jpg

Seems like someone made platyphyllum by using (Memoria Albert Eickhoff x stonei) and (Memoria Albert Eickhoff x stonei f. album)

So then, we are to wonder... who had access to stonei f. album... and could keep it secret for 10 years?

Ack!!
I'm confused!
Are we talking platyPHYLLUM or platyTAENUM?
First post was, I thought, about the latter???

All interesting, just confused....maybe I should go back to bed....

After untangling this lot I had a quick look at my Paph book which said that only One plant of this variety was ever reported. It was later divided into five (?) plants and sold on. I'd love to see the bona fides of anyone who said they had a descendant of one of these plants.

Cheers
Stephan

What a mess.

Actually it seems like we are talking about two different plants.

There are two separate articles in OD, one by Rudolf Jenny which includes the discussion of var platyaenium, and the second by Robert-Jan W. Quene' on the validity of P. platyphyllum.

The Jenny article includes the distribution of 5 or so pieces of a plant many years ago.

I have a plant I got as a young seedling in 98 -the tag says
Paph stonei "latifolium"
Ruth Kennedy AM/AOS
x
Self Gey 221 -- This came from New Zealand I think
It would have to be my biggest paph its leaf span is about 48" it is still a single growth and still not flowered . we were told a couple of years ago it wasn't stonei but it was a newer speice called paph
platyphyllum when it flowers I'll post one
this is different from stoneie var platyaeium
one my one is ? being a natural x with kolopakingii
the other ? being a natural X with lowii
Billie
--

I'm totally confused with the taxonomy/names like platyaenium and P. platyphyllum. However, I LOVE :heart: the old botanical illustrations that some of you have been posting! Please keep them coming.

Paph platyaenium is supposedly extinct in the wild and culture as well and platyphyllum formerly known as stonei var latifolium is now recognized as a separate species. Both are closely related to stonei and speaking of stonei, one of my stoneis has been in sheath forever!:roll: No wonder platytaenium became extinct. I wish it would hurry up and bloom! The same goes for my kolopakingii.

Here's a shot of mine, in spike from the same batch that yours came from. My plant is a single growth, 12" leaf span with the largest leaf 2.5" wide.

http://www.lienluu.com/sof/platy.jpg

http://www.lienluu.com/sof/platy2.jpg

Lien, are you sure it is a platyphyllum? It looks very much like a plant from the Cochlopetalum group to me, more like a moquettianum actually. It does not look like a multifloral species to me at all!

Hey Lien, what'd you pot it in, is that fine diatomite??
Just curious (as always!)

I still think mine looks rather different.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/ahmcd33/IMG_0083.jpg

Will be interesting to see how these turn out. I must say there is a good amount of purple coloring on the base of mine, quite similar to my victoria-reginae.

Hi Heather I was just looking at Paph. platyphyllum on Orchids Limited web site and they say the leaves should be up to 18 inches long and 3 inches wide.

Hi Eric,
I'm 99% sure this plant is a cochlopetalum and as soon as it blooms, it will be returning from whence it came.
I did get a platyphyllum recently from Orchids Ltd.

Thanks wolfcreekmn for digging this up! I find it very interesting & after reading through the various posts I find myself agreeing with papuanum's idea!!

Mang

There is a Black and White ilustration of Cypripedium Stonei, var. Platytaenium from Gardener's Chronicle ser 3, v 7: 548 (1890) that can be found @ Anntec's Web Page

URL is http://www.ladyslipper.com/gc017.jpg

The Image follows

http://www.ladyslipper.com/gc017.jpg

I don't see any pouch-like structures at the ends of those petals! And the color pattern doesn't match the labellum or the sepals......

That is why I would like to read the page the illustration refers the reader to (which is either 652 or 552).

WOW!
What confusion. Too much for me. :shock:

Grandma

Oh no!!! this is the fun part... Reviewing the reseach. And in the process learning.
The sharing of information, specially of quality information by quality people as we have been lucky to have here in this Forum makes the precoss of learning fun.
A tad not as organized and nicelly fitting as one would like at times but fun.

De la nada LUZ!!!!!

So whatever happened with these plants? Did they bloom out cochlo?

My guess: they're probably Paph. chamberlainianum (syn. victoria-regina) var. latifolium

--Stephen

Came across an interesting factoid in Lindenia indicating that var. platytaenium is a peloric clone:

"The variety platytoenium is considered by some authors as a natural hybrid, still a peculiarity observed some years ago on Baron Schroder's plant seems to prove that it is only a variation of C. Stonei. In 1887, this plant produced a flower having one petal narrow as in ordinary C. Stonei, and the other twice as broad, as in the variety platytoenium. It appears therefore that the two represent but one and the same species, because, as was remarked by Mr. N.E. Brown in announcing this anomaly in The Gardeners' Chronicle, the breadth of the petals is the only difference which exists between C. Stonei and the variety platytoenium."

Source: Linden, J.J., C.L. Linden, and E. Rodigas. "Cypripedium Stonei." Lindenia: Iconography of Orchids 6 (1890): Plate 281. (Translated by Guido J. Braem)

--Stephen