# Phrag besseae var. flavum no longer...



## Orchid-fever (Feb 9, 2013)

Hi 

So today I took my phrag besseae var. flavum in for judging (& I'm thrilled to have received an award) but much to my surprise the flavum variety is no longer accepted. The new variety for yellow besseaes is 'besseae var. besseae'. News to me. Any way the clone 'William James' received a 78 pt HCC/AOS.


----------



## iBreed (Feb 9, 2013)

Congratulations, nice yellow hue.

Jose


----------



## Phrag-Plus (Feb 9, 2013)

Gorgeous yellow! besseae var. besseae what a joke!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 9, 2013)

Phrag-Plus said:


> Gorgeous yellow! besseae var. besseae what a joke!



I agree. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Lovely yellow!


----------



## NYEric (Feb 10, 2013)

Why would thery name this variety after someone who has nothing to do with its existence? A-holes. Yay besseae! Congrats! btw


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 10, 2013)

Very nice, congrats on your bessae.
Interesting, because, if I remeber well ( but I will look after) original description talks about a red flower. So bessae var bessae must be a red flower.


----------



## Susie11 (Feb 10, 2013)

Nice.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes, original description is dated in 1981 ( bessae), 9 year later flavum variety was described in 1990.


----------



## Shiva (Feb 10, 2013)

Sometimes, the one thing to do is ignore these guys.


----------



## phrag guy (Feb 10, 2013)

very nice flower


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 10, 2013)

Very nice shade of yellow!

I think of red blooms when I think of besseae var. besseae. So is the name on your award besseae var besseae 'William James' ?


----------



## Erythrone (Feb 10, 2013)

A beauty!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 10, 2013)

huh, replied last night.. disappeared

very nice flower, congrats, and the new name is a head-scratcher


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 10, 2013)

So, who is the taxonomist that decided this and what was the rationale behind the change?


----------



## goods (Feb 10, 2013)

Odd, I wonder what the red besseae is called then? Was the yellow form formerly var. flavum or was it forma flavum?


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 10, 2013)

Very nice!!! Congrats!!
Here we go again, they'll always find something to screw with! It most cases it is easy to ignore them but when it comes to judging if it's not entered properly it can be turned down.


----------



## Orchid-fever (Feb 10, 2013)

I do not know what taxonomic authority is responsible but the "accepted" name is on the kew monocot checklist. Oh, and while you are there check longifolium var album it too is Gone????


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 10, 2013)

Shiva said:


> Sometimes, the one thing to do is ignore these guys.


That's my plan.



Orchid-fever said:


> I do not know what taxonomic authority is responsible but the "accepted" name is on the kew monocot checklist. Oh, and while you are there check longifolium var album it too is Gone????


Somebody must not like the name "album."


----------



## gnathaniel (Feb 10, 2013)

Braem's publication of flavum as a botanical variety is listed on the Checklist as a non-accepted name; AFAIK valid varietal status requires morphological differences beyond just unusual color. Since dalessandroi is considered a variety of besseae on WCSP, "besseae var. besseae" refers to a 'normal' besseae that's not var. dalessandroi. If this is different from how AOS operated in the past then it probably just reflects them trying to square up with Kew...

Beautiful plant whatever it's called, and congratulations on the award!


----------



## goods (Feb 11, 2013)

gnathaniel said:


> AFAIK valid varietal status requires morphological differences beyond just unusual color. Since dalessandroi is considered a variety of besseae on WCSP, "besseae var. besseae" refers to a 'normal' besseae that's not var. dalessandroi.



That's along the same lines I was thinking Nat! It's called besseae var. besseae because it's a regular besseae and not var. dalessandroi. I think most of us here (correctly or incorrectly) look at dalessandroi as a separate species, so that's why the besseae var. besseae designation seemed unusual.


----------



## labskaus (Feb 11, 2013)

Since those judges were so picky about names they should have noticed that there is a besseae forma aureum which is (another) valid name for the flower they had in front of them.
Great flower, congrats!


----------



## Shiva (Feb 11, 2013)

labskaus said:


> Since those judges were so picky about names they should have noticed that there is a besseae forma aureum which is (another) valid name for the flower they had in front of them.
> Great flower, congrats!



I dont think the judges had anything to do with the name change. Taxonomists did and these guys, like every other reseachers in every fields of science, have to publish or perish. :wink:


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 11, 2013)

So wouldn't the correct name for a yellow besseae be: Phrag. besseae var besseae fma flavum?


----------



## NYEric (Feb 11, 2013)

Most taxonomist are jackasses. I hope no one takes that personally.  :evil:


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 11, 2013)

Sounds like the "clumpers" are firmly in command at Kew. There was a rumor floating around a while ago, that Kew's reluctance to recognize d'alessandroi as a separate species had to do with it's use (as "besseae") to make many of the F1 besseae hybrids registered in the early days by the RHS.


----------



## goldenrose (Feb 11, 2013)

It makes sense & I can understand what gnathaniel pointed out but they're making it difficult & confusing aren't they? Why can't besseae be the original red, then var. dalessandroi, var. flavum, etc. 


tomkalina said:


> So wouldn't the correct name for a yellow besseae be: Phrag. besseae var besseae fma flavum?


That's what I would think. Is there & I missed it, a flavum dalessandroi? Then it would be bess var. dalessandroi fma flavum? Just seems easier than continuing to repeat besseae at every opportunity.
When it comes to judging now a new can of worms is opened ....
red, yellow, dalessandroi are all judged against one another. How can dalessandroi & flavum bessies compete against today's current reds? One would think they'd have to, or need to have classes broken into color or variety, as there is for paphs, phals, etc. 
Are there any AM bess flavums?


----------



## Shiva (Feb 11, 2013)

I'll never bring a plant to be judged by the AOS again. Way too complicated, and even then, I have to pay for the award. Much better to buy another phrag or paph with the money. :evil:


----------



## gnathaniel (Feb 11, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> So wouldn't the correct name for a yellow besseae be: Phrag. besseae var besseae fma flavum?



The only names currently accepted by Kew are Phrag. besseae, besseae v. besseae, and besseae v. dalessandroi, color forms are listed but not accepted as valid. My (completely uneducated) guess is that the published flavum name is considered a cultivar that doesn't reflect wild populations enough to merit taxonomic status. Or maybe they're just getting tired of endless orchid color form descriptions that you can't tell apart on an herbarium sheet anyway?



NYEric said:


> Most taxonomist are jackasses. I hope no one takes that personally.  :evil:



Yeah, but _everyone_ who makes sweeping generalizations about a class of people is a jackass! Wait a minute... :wink: Anyway, my dad is a plant taxonomist and most of the time he's much less of a jackass than most people, myself included.



goldenrose said:


> When it comes to judging now a new can of worms is opened ....
> red, yellow, dalessandroi are all judged against one another. How can dalessandroi & flavum bessies compete against today's current reds? One would think they'd have to, or need to have classes broken into color or variety, as there is for paphs, phals, etc.
> Are there any AM bess flavums?



Isn't color one aspect of award scoring? So a flower with smaller NS but better color should still be competitive, right? AOS can do pretty much what it wants WRT its judging system, and I agree that it could/should judge this species the way growers want it judged, including segregation by cultivar if so desired. Judging is primarily useful to the horticulture/hobby spheres, so it seems reasonable that judging should promote the goals of those growers.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 11, 2013)

gnathaniel said:


> Yeah, but _everyone_ who makes sweeping generalizations about a class of people is a jackass!



We could have fun with this, but we won't do it!......(maybe)


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 11, 2013)

the colour is soooo nice.............wish I could have that in a paph.


----------



## eggshells (Feb 12, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> the colour is soooo nice.............wish I could have that in a paph.



You can! armeniacum fma. markii


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 12, 2013)

Sweet flower, sweet award! congrats on your yellow form.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 12, 2013)

gnathaniel said:


> Yeah, but _everyone_ who makes sweeping generalizations about a class of people is a jackass! Wait a minute... :wink: .



Well played Sir!


----------



## Drorchid (Feb 12, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> So wouldn't the correct name for a yellow besseae be: Phrag. besseae var besseae fma flavum?



That is what I would call it!

Congrats on the award btw! Do you know the parentage of your besseae var besseae f. flavum, and where it came from?

Robert


----------



## Rick (Feb 12, 2013)

And I was there to see it in real life.:drool:


----------



## Orchid-fever (Feb 12, 2013)

Thanks everyone. I have to say that the judges were just doing what they are supposed to by checking the valid name on a species. It is those clever taxonomists that keep us on our toes... For better or worse. 

As for where the plant came from; it was purchased by a friend. I believe it was from Hilo orchid farm but I will have to ask to be sure. I got 3 besseae flavum plants and 2 of them are really excellent. I named the other clone 'golden goose'. I will look for a picture.


----------



## limuhead (Feb 13, 2013)

NYEric said:


> Most taxonomist are jackasses. I hope no one takes that personally.  :evil:



I think maybe a jackass would take that personally...


----------



## The Orchid Boy (Feb 13, 2013)

Congrats on the award!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 14, 2013)

I really don't understand why a species would be called it's name twice. I.e., how can a form of a species be the same as the species?! Just doesn't compute.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Feb 14, 2013)

When there are variations, one of them, usually the most typical form, gets the species name repeated. This is usually done with subspecies rather than varieties. So, for example, we are Homo sapiens sapiens. But chimpanzees have several subspecies. They have several names, but the most typical form is Pan troglodytes troglodytes. In the case of besseae, if a taxonmoist views d'allesandroi as a subspecies rather than a species, then typical besseae would be P. besseae besseae, while the other form would be P. besseae d'allesandroi. The color shouldn't be an issue on that level, but I would think for shows it would be P. besseae besseae fma flavum (or var. flavum, if that's accepted.)


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 15, 2013)

eggshells said:


> You can! armeniacum fma. markii



Thats nice but not the same clean pale lemon colour..........


----------



## kentuckiense (Feb 15, 2013)

It looks like Kew doesn't accept ANY color forms now (based on my small sample size):

http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/[email protected]@046150220131858616


----------



## NYEric (Feb 15, 2013)

RHS....- feh!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 15, 2013)

kentuckiense said:


> It looks like Kew doesn't accept ANY color forms now (based on my small sample size):
> 
> http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/[email protected]@046150220131858616


What?! So the red form is the same as the yellow form???


----------



## gonewild (Feb 15, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> What?! So the red form is the same as the yellow form???



Sure it's the same... Other than looking completely different.


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 15, 2013)

Maybe the KEW folks are colorblind?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 15, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> Maybe the KEW folks are colorblind?



Well where their heads are it's mostly brown.


----------



## eaborne (Feb 22, 2013)

Awesome!


----------

