Angraecum keniae

Names and Taxonomy

The accepted scientific name is Angraecum keniae Kraenzl. The name was first published in Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik 17: 59 (1893) and is listed as an accepted species by Kew’s Plants of the World Online [1]. Two homotypic synonyms are recorded: Angraecoides keniae (Kraenzl.) Szlach., Mytnik & Grochocka and Mystacidium keniae (Kraenzl.) Rolfe.

No common name is documented in the available sources.

How to Identify This Species

Published descriptions provide only limited morphological details. The plant is characterised as an epiphytic subshrub [1]. Specific measurements of stems, leaves, flower size, colour, fragrance, or spur length are not documented in the sources consulted. Consequently, reliable field identification should rely on herbarium specimens or expert confirmation rather than visual cues alone.

Native Range and Habitat

Angraecum keniae is endemic to Kenya, with the type locality recorded on Mt. Kenya [1]. It grows as an epiphyte in wet tropical forest habitats on the mountain slopes. Detailed elevation limits, specific host trees, or micro‑habitat preferences are not provided in the cited literature.

Species‑Specific Care

Scroll to explore the table →

Because the species is epiphytic, growers often mount orchids on bark or tree‑fern plaques, but no source in the current dataset confirms a preferred medium for Angraecum keniae. Until detailed horticultural observations are published, cultivation should follow general Angraecum epiphyte guidelines with caution and close monitoring.

Flowering and Pollination

No published information on flowering time, flower morphology, fragrance, nectar spur length, or pollinator interactions for Angraecum keniae was found in the supplied sources.

Conservation and Responsible Cultivation

A secondary source records the species as extinct, with the last known collection dated 1887/1888 [2]. This status is not linked to an official IUCN assessment, so the extinction claim should be treated as reported but unverified by global red‑list authorities.

Evidence and Limitations

The profile relies primarily on Kew’s Plants of the World Online for taxonomy and distribution, and on a recent compilation that lists the species as extinct. Detailed morphological, phenological, ecological, and horticultural data are absent from the current evidence base. Future field studies or peer‑reviewed revisions are needed to fill these gaps.