Coel. graminifolia

[Mike O'C]

Can't flower mine. Has the name not been changed to Coelogyne viscosa?
Keep well and kind regards
Mike

[pheli]

Hi Mike,
Coelogyne viscosa= Coel. graminifolia.

[Mike O'C]

Originally Posted by pheli

Hi Mike,
Coelogyne viscosa= Coel. graminifolia.

Hi Pheli,
Not sure how to interpret your message. Was I correct in saying that the correct name for Coelogyne graminifolia is now Coelogyne viscosa or are you saying that Coelogyne graminifolia is the correct name and that Coelogyne viscosa is just a synonym? It gets a bit confusing with all these name changes.
Keep well and kind regards
Mike

[pheli]

Hi Mike,
Coelogyne viscosa is a more formal name for this species and now most books adopt this name rather than Coelogyne graminifolia.
Coel. graminifolia is just easy for me to remember, because the word 'graminifolia' quite suitable to describe its thin long leaves.

[Mike O'C]

Originally Posted by pheli

Hi Mike,
Coelogyne viscosa is a more formal name for this species and now most books adopt this name rather than Coelogyne graminifolia.
Coel. graminifolia is just easy for me to remember, because the word 'graminifolia' quite suitable to describe its thin long leaves.

Pheli, although South Africa changed to the metric system over 30 years ago I still tend to think in inches, feet, yards and miles. So I agree that Coelogyne graminifolia is easier to remeber than Coelogyne viscosa , Only wish I could get mine to flower
Keep well and kind regards
Mike

[taipan]

Hello MikeOC
It appears the correct name for this species is Coel.viscosa - desc. by Rchb.f in 1856 whilst C.graminifolia was desc. by C.Parish & Rchb.f in 1874. Thus reducing graminifolia to a synonym of C.viscosa ( See "Genus Coelogyne - A Synopsis" - D.Clayton.). I will check Seidenfadden when I can find his OB for Coelogyne but Dudley's book would be more up to date. Interestingly enough Dudly states that "there seems to be another C.viscosa Boxall ex Naves nom nud. which may refer to another species". Hope this clarifies things

[Mike O'C]

Originally Posted by taipan

Hello MikeOC
It appears the correct name for this species is Coel.viscosa - desc. by Rchb.f in 1856 whilst C.graminifolia was desc. by C.Parish & Rchb.f in 1874. Thus reducing graminifolia to a synonym of C.viscosa ( See "Genus Coelogyne - A Synopsis" - D.Clayton.). I will check Seidenfadden when I can find his OB for Coelogyne but Dudley's book would be more up to date. Interestingly enough Dudly states that "there seems to be another C.viscosa Boxall ex Naves nom nud. which may refer to another species". Hope this clarifies things

Thanks Taipan. It makes it as clear as mud! Just joking! Find Dudley's keys a bit hard to follow sometimes. Will see if I can find my Seidenfaden. If you find yours first please let me know.
Keep well and kind regards
Mike

[taipan]

Hello Mike
I looked through Seidenfaden ( Dansk Botanisk Arkiv - Orchid genera in Thailand 1 - 111 1975 - see pge 37-38 of the Coelogyne section)
Gunnar states that C.graminifolia is a synonym of C.viscosa & was very critical of Reichenbach for his "will"

[cb977]

I love this one, pheli!

I got one recently that is mounted and it has started blooming for me!

The odd thing is that it is blooming from the two bulbs on the sides of the mount and the blooms are facing backwards! Each side has 4 blooms, I think

[pheli]

Hi Mike, the blooms of Coelogyne trinervis really resemble those of C. gramnifolia. I don’t have C. trinervis. But after google searching, I found that C. trinervis has ovate folding leaves while C. gramnifolia has elongate, cym-like leaves. This is the main difference between the plants of this two species.