Sophronitis Lindl.
The name is derived from the Greek “sophron” = “modest”, here applied to size.
Sophronitis cernua is the type species, having been described by Lindley in 1827. The genus Sophronitis was a small one, consisting of only nine accepted species. Lately, all the South American Laelias have had their genetic make-up checked out and it has been decided that they must also now be called “Sophronitis”. Of course, there are many who do not want to accept this ruling and there may be more revisions. Even I have some reservations about considering the “Queen of the Orchids” – Laelia purpurata as of “modest” size, along with L. crispa, L. grandis, L. lobata, L. tenebrosa and others. Here, I will deal only with the earlier view, which included the following nine small to miniature species: Soph. açuensis (pronounced ah-ssoo-ensis), bicolor, brevipedunculata, cernua, coccinea (with all its varieties), mantiquerae, pterocarpa, pygmaea and wittigiana. Even in this small group, there are some species which others had listed as varieties – it looks to be a fertile field for taxonomists.
All come from the central Eastern part of Brazil. Like the Laelias, they all have eight pollinia and possess only a very small or no floral sheath. All come in various shades of red but there are some albinistic (white) and xanthotic (yellow) varieties.
All Sophronitis except the desert dwelling Sophronitis brevipedunculata require very high humidity. All except Sophronitis cernua, (liking Phalaenopsis conditions), grow in somewhat cool climates and all will show darker colours when grown cold. This of course holds true for most other flowers. Unfortunately, Sophronitis are a bit difficult to grow in captivity, with perhaps the exception of the two species listed above. One thing goes for all: they grow much better when mounted, so that they can be watered copiously without rotting.
There have been several writings published about Sophronitis as recognized earlier. Dr. Carl Withner’s series of “The Cattleyas and Their Relatives” deals thoroughly with this genus in volume III. Since the genetic fingerprinting era has begun, there are several articles here and there. I found a listing of all plants that are now or have been at other times called “Sophronitis” – it is a long list, considering the new additions of former Laelias. There is also the publication from the Orchid Digest (reprint of Dr. Fowlie’s treatment of “The Genus Sophronitis” 1968 - 1975); it is easy to read and has much information plus colour pictures and line drawings.
We must accept the fact that all life, including orchids, is still evolving. During our relatively short life-span we may not notice any of this evolution. Mostly, different species are clearly separated (and kept this way in nature) through their development in different geographical areas. This can be by way of distance on a horizontal plane, e.g. from along the coast to farther inland. It can be on a vertical plane, e.g. from lowland to high alpine ranges. The different species also are flowering at different seasons and (sometimes through physical structures or scent) will attract different pollinators. The major cause for speciation is geological. Of course, all speciation and evolution ceases to matter when the breeders with their toothpicks come into the picture… Sophronitis as members of the Laeliinae Subtribe are closely related to the Cattleyas and have been bred with many species and hybrids of this alliance. Attractive features of the genus are the (mostly) brilliant red or orange colour, their tolerance of cool temperatures, their floriferousness and the plants’ small stature. Some other features which unfortunately also come through in their breeding are the slightly droopy flowers – many Sophronitis and in particular the much bred Soph. coccinea have a weak stem - and the narrow, sharply pointed lip, which can lead to disappointing results – wide, flat lip form is considered to be more desirable. Sophronitis and most of their hybrids take a long time to mature – about ten years.
The first 25 primary Sophronitis hybrids are listed below, in chronological order:
| Sc. Batemaniana (x C. intermedia) | Veitch | 1886 |
| Sc. Calypso (C. loddigesii) | Veitch | 1890 |
| Epiphron. Veitchii (x Epi. radicans) | Veitch | 1890 |
| Slc. Veitchii (x Lc. Schilleriana) = (C. intermedia x L. purpurata) | Veitch | 1892 |
| Sc. Eximia (x C. bowringiana) | Veitch | 1894 |
| Sl. Laeta (x L. dayana) | Veitch | 1894 |
| Sl. Mariottiana (x L. flava) | Mariott | 1896 |
| Sc. Chamberlainii (x C. harrisoniana) | Chamberlain | 1898 |
| Sc. Cleopatra (x C. leopoldii) | Charlesworth | 1898 |
| Sc. Hardyana or George Hardy (x C. aclandiae) | Hardy | 1898 |
| Sc. Imperatrix or Queen Empress (x C. mossiae) | Veitch | 1899 |
| Slc. Eros (x Lc. Elegans) = (L. purpurata x C. leopoldii) | Charlesworth | 1900 |
| Sl. Orpettii (x L. pumila) | Orpet | 1901 |
| Sc. Nydia (x C. Calumnata) = (C. aclandiae x C. intermedia) | Charlesworth | 1901 |
| Sl. Gratrixiae (x L. tenebrosa) | Charlesworth | 1901 |
| Sl. Valda (x L. harpophylla) | Veitch | 1901 |
| Epiphron. Orpettii (x Epi. O’Brienianum) = Epi. (evectum x radicans) | Thayer | 1901 |
| Sl. Psyche (x L. cinnabarina) | Charlesworth | 1902 |
| Sl. Heatonensis (x L. purpurata) | Charlesworth | 1902 |
| Sc. Saxa (x C. trianae) | Veitch | 1903 |
| Sc. Warnhamiensis (x C. amthystoglossa) | Lucas | 1904 |
| Sc. Atreus (x C. lawrenceana) | Veitch | 1904 |
| Sc. Doris (x C. dowiana) | Bull-Leeman | 1905 |
| Sc. Heathii (x C. schroederae) | Heath | 1907 |
| Sc. Blackii (x C. Hardyana) = C. (dowiana x warscewiczii) | Thwaites | 1909 |
Since then, there have been many more crosses tried – some were more successful than others. I only wonder how the newly coined Sophronitis species will affect the old names. For instance, Sl. Valda will now only be S. Valda; that was easy. How many of our Sophrolaeliocattleyas need to be changed? How many Potinaras are no more?
In closing, I would like to remind the reader that even though most orchids are worth some research, some, like the earlier accepted nine Sophronitis species need to be studied; without trying to learn about them, you will likely not be successful in growing these small jewels, but they are worth it!
Ingrid Schmidt-Ostrander - Canadian Orchid Congress