Phal speciosa 'blue'
 

This is a mutation from clones of Phal speciosa 'C#1'. I kept this plant because instead of reddish color, this has bluish purple color.

Weather is cooler now - so this plant is flowering with less colored segments.

My experience is that Phal speciosa/tetraspis tends to have less color pigment when flowering in cooler temperature.

November 2011

http://www.bigleaforchids.com/store/...e_20111105.JPG

compare to 2008
http://www.bigleaforchids.com/copper...iosa_front.JPG

I have a 'C#1' that has a white flower at the moment.

Peter - absolutely stunning! Any plans on cloning it? Let us know if you do.

Wow...only one petal with the original coloring...its lighter and only the lip retained its original colors...this is a beautiful bloom...

Wow, gorgeous!

Rockin ! Clone it !

Fabulous!

Very cool! Looks like grape jelly!

On another note... Peter, do you know if there has been a diffinitive decision on what species C#1 really is? My tag says tetraspis but I'd like to fix it if I need to.

Now there's a can of worms. My C#1 (MC1312) from Norman's was retroactively renamed in my order history from tetraspis to Phal. speciosa var. christiana 'C #1' ( x ), yet he is currently selling a cross (NF1496) using same in which he refers to both parents as tetraspis, Phal. tetraspis (tetraspis ' Jumbo' x tetraspis ' C #1 ').

At least one poster on another board contends there are no surviving speciosa.

I have a question that takes the confusion one step further. Peter said that this particular plant was the product of cloning. Given that, even though it is different from the original plant that was cloned, shouldn't it retain the original clonal name 'C#1' as opposed the the 'blue' that Peter has given it in the title of the thread?

Terri - there cannot be a diffinitive decision. In my opinion, this is Phal speciosa based on the fact that a taxonomist has declared it so - and most recently AOS Species Identification Task Force has confirmed the name. There are still dispute from those who think the authority doesn't know better. A taxonomist who knows better should step foward and challenge the name. It's not an easy task so no one is up to it yet.

Glen - A mutated plant from cloning is no longer the same plant, genetically speaking. Thus I can give this plant a new clone cultivar name. There are many awarded plants with different cultivar name because of mutation. An example came to mind is Phal Golden Peoker 'Brother' AM/AOS in 1991. A mutated harlequin clone was awarded 'Ever Spring' JC/AOS in 1996. Followed by another mutated harlequin type called 'Nan-Cho' AM/AOS in 1996. 'BL' HCC/AOS 1998 is more or less the same as 'Nan-Cho' but perhaps judges felt the flowers are different. Then there is 'CAt's Paw Magician' AM/JC/AOS "Unusual phenomenon of two totally and exquisitely distinct sets of flowers on separate inflorescences on the same plant; both inflorescences reflect flowers with the familiar Golden Peoker patterns but are so drastically different as to appear to betwo separate plants; one inflorescence mirrors the flowers of the 'Everspring' clone and one mimics the 'BL' clone, both blooming on the same plant"