It is rather unusual to flower something, go look for it and not find any images in the literature you have on the subject. Quite fitting for this species. It is named after the dark and so shall its details remain.

The etymology of the epithet is umbra, shade. Assumedly, this is for what conditions this plant is found growing. Normally we think of a plant’s morphology as being reflective of its environment. Are the leaves thin? Must have lots of access to water. Leaves and bulbs succulent? Must be from a drier area or have severe seasonal droughts. In the case of this Angraecum, the leaves are thin. This is a strategy to limit photosynthetic surface area as not to lose too much water by limiting photosynthesis. Maybe it comes from very dry environs and uses both strategies to increases water retention? Stewart reports: “Epiphyte in riverine and submontane forest;1700-1900m; flowering in April and October.” Not exactly the environment I think of for a plant to evolve retreating into the shade.

Despite all the literature and namesake, I grow this fairly bright. Bright enough to flower Cattleya cernua. I do dry it between waterings as most Angraecoids enjoy such treatment. The 3-4mm stems have in their description being able to grow 30cm in length. It branches and forms a nice cascade of thin green with brown red mottling leaves. I think its attractive from the sense of being an unlikely thing to grow on a piece of cork.

Flower spikes come off the stem about 2cm. Thus far has been a reluctant bloomer. Maybe that is in part because my plant has been suffering like driving towards a vehicle with LED headlights searing your retinas? I’m a proponent of doing things by the book so it got moved to a place where only that warm glow of classic headlights exists. Fingers crossed that’s what I takes to get a flush of flowers (which are about 1 cm wide).