A Rare Form of Phalaenopsis cornu-cervi
Its Reappearance After a Quarter Century
©2006 Dr. David L. Grove, PhD.
Originally published in the August 2006 edition of Orchids,
published by the American Orchid Society

OTHER POSSIBLE CLONES. A number of cultivars have been offered as Phal. thalebanii or have been depicted as such on various Internet Websites that feature pictures of Phalaenopsis species. All of the pictures show flowers that are predominantly red because of a substantial coalescense of red spots and bars, but so does the sanguinea form that Christenson describes in his Monograph (op. cit: 85). In his comments on the sanguinea form, Christenson states: “This phase of the species represents a nearly red flower brought about by the coalescing of red spots and bars. The pattern is still visible and a yellow picotee is (narrow border) is still evident… This form differs from the thalebanii form by having the visible ground color.” A good example of the confusion between the two forms occurred in 2005, when a plant was presented for AOS judging under the name Phal. thalebanii ‘Magnifico’ and as such received a provisional CHM (Certificate of Horticultural Merit). However, the exhibitor was required to have the species identification reviewed by a taxonomist. Leslie Garay, PhD, performed the examination and rejected the thalebanii epithet. He identified the plant as cornu-cervi var. rubescens. The judges voted to let the original provisional award stand, but with the corrected name. (Christenson, however, in his Monograph, [op. cit: 85] regards Phal. cornu-cervi f. sanguinea to be the basionym and considers Phal. cornu-cervi var. rubescens to be an invalid name [“nom. nud.”].) While the award photograph of the rubescens plant does not prominently display the chartreuse ground color, the text of the award description is quite explicit: the color of the sepals and petals is described as being “chartreuse, heavily overlaid mahogany, barred darker mahogany, inner half of lateral sepals chartreuse, moderately barred mahogany” (Awards Quarterly, 36[4]:281), thereby supporting its identification as the sanguinea or rubescens form of Phal. cornu-cervi. The same photographic problem may also apply to most or all of the other plants purporting to be Phal. thalebanii and displayed as such on various Internet sites. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has any credentials to support a representation that is the form Seidenfaden described as Phal. thalebanii. They too, like the plant given a CHM award last year, may well be the sanguinea or rubescens form that, while not common, has been available from several commercial sources in the United States and that I have seen offered in Thailand. Apparently the commercial sellers or the purchasers of plants labeled Phal. thalebanii did so out of absence of adequate knowledge or in order to enhance the monetary value of the plants, or both. That, however, does not diminish their obvious beauty and desirability. As Shakespeare said in the oft-quoted lines from Romeo and Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Next, A New Discovery -- >