Cattleya percivaliana ‘Summit’ FCC/AOS

[Guldal]

I was just responding to the issue of how the award is on the tag. I don’t think it matters whether something is a division or a mericlone - the HCC/AM/FCC would show up the same, right after the cultivar name. The tag can’t tell us whether something is a division or a mericlone.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head, Terry.
I think, Belle, by reffering to 'what she learned' is reffering to another thread, where she had put the award-epithet in parentheses, which she - by the 'divine intervention' of DrLesliEe, ass. judge of the AOS - learned wasn't necessary, as it was a division of the originally awarded plant. Leslie mentioned, though, explicitely, that the award (except naturally awards for culture) follows divisions as well as mericlones.

 

[southernbelle]

You absolutely hit the nail on the head, Terry.
I think, Belle, by reffering to 'what she learned' is reffering to another thread, where she had put the award-epithet in parentheses, which she - by the 'divine intervention' of DrLesliEe, ass. judge of the AOS - learned wasn't necessary, as it was a division of the originally awarded plant. Leslie mentioned, though, explicitely, that the award (except naturally awards for culture) follows divisions as well as mericlones.

Correct Guidal. Not to belabor a point, but to make sure I understand: if a plant is a division of an original awarded plant, the FCC/AOS would not be in parenthesis, if a division of a clone, it would be. Is that correct? Also, are clones and mericlones the same thing? And, are they identical genetically to the original plant? (I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions, but I’ve tried to find this info through AOS and have had no luck.)

 

[southernbelle]

Ah, I didn't know, you and Terry know each other, Belle!

Thank you for the background information, too - just to make sure: I didn't intend to question your seller's credibility (your 'Summit' is just so beautifull!), I was just musing in general over the troubles posed by the whole mericloning business, and some of the trials and tribulations of the orchid grower in general!

Looking forward to see the other plants, that you acquired, when in bloom!

I didn’t take it as questioning credibility. But, as I said it was a matter of making sure I understood the listing and knew what I was getting, as the prices seemed reasonable (compared to other orig divisions, as Terry pointed out.).

 

[Guldal]

Correct Guidal. Not to belabor a point, but to make sure I understand: if a plant is a division of an original awarded plant, the FCC/AOS would not be in parenthesis, if a division of a clone, it would be. Is that correct? Also, are clones and mericlones the same thing? And, are they identical genetically to the original plant? (I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions, but I’ve tried to find this info through AOS and have had no luck.)

As I understand it: a clone is a specific plant of a species, a cultivar - it can be recognized by it's clonal name. In this case: Cattleya (genus name), percivaliana (species) 'Summit' (clonal name).

Meristem cloning is a process of propagation, and I think Terry is in the right, when he proposes, that it would be a help for clarification if we used the term 'mericlone' for the end result of that process.

Both plants propagated by division and by mericloning are considered identical with the mother plant and thus carries the same clonal name.But for one exception (no one said, life is simple).
In the process of mericloning there might in some of the resulting plants by mutation have occured slight changes in the genetic makeup of the plants - some of the changes might not express themselves in the appearence of the plants and some not in a way, that warrants sufficient grounds for distinguishing them from the mother plant - all these plants bear the same clonal name as the latter. (But notice they are not genetically 100% completely identical with the mother plant, although they bear the same clonal name - this is often a stumbling block for most people's understanding of the matter.)
However, some mericloned plants differ so much from the mother plant and with the differing traits being stable in propagation, that they might warrant recognition as a new clone f.ex. the percivaliana 'Mendelhal-Summit', mentioned by Terry, or maybe the clone with variegated leaves (mericlone of a non-variegated mothet plant) mentioned in another thread. (Notice in this instance the decision is based on an evaluation based mainly on the morphological features of the plant.)

Eds explains the genetics much better than I can in the following thread: The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
But beware: stick to Eds' and Terry's input or read the ICNCP, else I fear, you would leave the thread more confused than before.

Concerning the awards: both divisions and mericlones carry the same award as the mother plant - no need for parentheses. Leslie is checking up on AOS award rules concerning the mericlones, that differ markedly from the motherplant.
(Parentheses are used, I think, to provide information on the parentage of a plant, be it a cross of a species or a hybrid. There is a rule for whether the pod- or the seedparent is mentioned first, that I never can remember. Maybe Terry or someone else can help us out there?)

 

[terryros]

Deb's price was a great deal. The provenance is everything, just like with art and antiques. All we can do is push to try and verify that something can be traced back to the original and Deb did that. This is often very difficult. I don't question Waldor at all. But, I think every major grower has been innocently mislead by mislabeling, miscommunication etc. The original 'Summit' was awarded in 1972 to "exhibitor unknown"! Think of how difficult it would be to track down the original plant and find out if it still exists. Cattleya percivaliana 'Mendenhall-Summit' was awarded to Carter and Holmes in 2000 and we know that this plant came from a cloning of 'Summit' so clones of 'Summit' go back a very long way. How often might a clone have been innocently (or not) labeled as a division way back and then that carries forward to today. It would probably take full genome analysis AND the availability of the original 'Summit' plant to be able to study and tell whether anyone's 'Summit' today is a division or a clone. This won't happen for a long time, if ever. In the meantime, be happy when a named cultivar turns out to be a great plant at a great price.

 

[southernbelle]

As I understand it: a clone is a specific plant of a species, a cultivar - it can be recognized by it's clonal name. In this case: Cattleya (genus name), percivaliana (species) 'Summit' (clonal name).

Meristem cloning is a process of propagation, and I think Terry is in the right, when he proposes, that it would be a help for clarification if we used the term 'mericlone' for the end result of that process.

Both plants propagated by division and by mericloning are considered identical with the mother plant and thus carries the same clonal name.But for one exception (no one said, life is simple).
In the process of mericloning there might in some of the resulting plants by mutation have occured slight changes in the genetic makeup of the plants - some of the changes might not express themselves in the appearence of the plants and some not in a way, that warrants sufficient grounds for distinguishing them from the mother plant - all these plants bear the same clonal name as the latter. (But notice they are not genetically 100% completely identical with the mother plant, although they bear the same clonal name - this is often a stumbling block for most people's understanding of the matter.)
However, some mericloned plants differ so much from the mother plant and with the differing traits being stable in propagation, that they might warrant recognition as a new clone f.ex. the percivaliana 'Mendelhal-Summit', mentioned by Terry, or maybe the clone with variegated leaves (mericlone of a non-variegated mothet plant) mentioned in another thread. (Notice in this instance the decision is based on an evaluation based mainly on the morphological features of the plant.)

Eds explains the genetics much better than I can in the following thread: The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
But beware: stick to Eds' and Terry's input or read the ICNCP, else I fear, you would leave the thread more confused than before.

Concerning the awards: both divisions and mericlones carry the same award as the mother plant - no need for parentheses. Leslie is checking up on AOS award rules concerning the mericlones, that differ markedly from the motherplant.
(Parentheses are used, I think, to provide information on the parentage of a plant, be it a cross of a species or a hybrid. There is a rule for whether the pod- or the seedparent is mentioned first, that I never can remember. Maybe Terry or someone else can help us out there?)

Thanks!!! So clones are named cultivars of species, and have 'Clonal Names' however, are not asexual reproductions, therefore are genetically identical. They carry the award of the mother plant no parentheses. Mericlones are tissue asexual reproductions and can vary genetically, but would still carry the award of the mother plant with no parentheses.
I read through the ICNCP when it was posted originally and it twisted my brain! Sue Bottom has an article about "Understanding your Plant Tag) that I read and while helpful, still did not clarify some differences for me. I believe one statement she made was the confusing part, and may be incorrect re mericlones being identical genetically. "Any division or mericlone from this cultivar should be genetically identical so it will carry the same name as the mother plant." I guess "should be" is the part that allows for variation, but I read it as genetically identical and it made me wonder what the value of original division vs. mericlone or mericlone division was. So it was confusing. Here is the link to her article.

https://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/UnderstandingYourPlantTagbySueBottom.pdf

And when I was (ever so nicely) corrected because I put parentheses around the FCC/AOS of 'Summit' I misunderstood the reasoning behind it. So, parentheses are used in an unnamed cross to designate the awards given to either of the parents of the cross I.e. Paph. (Rod McLellan 'Hillsview' (AM/AOS) x Sorcerer's Stone 'Yellow Desire'). Now, it makes sense, yay, thanks!!! Oh, and according to Sue's info, the Mom or Pod Parent is listed first. Her comparison to members of a family is helpful.

 

[southernbelle]

Deb's price was a great deal. The provenance is everything, just like with art and antiques. All we can do is push to try and verify that something can be traced back to the original and Deb did that. This is often very difficult. I don't question Waldor at all. But, I think every major grower has been innocently mislead by mislabeling, miscommunication etc. The original 'Summit' was awarded in 1972 to "exhibitor unknown"! Think of how difficult it would be to track down the original plant and find out if it still exists. Cattleya percivaliana 'Mendenhall-Summit' was awarded to Carter and Holmes in 2000 and we know that this plant came from a cloning of 'Summit' so clones of 'Summit' go back a very long way. How often might a clone have been innocently (or not) labeled as a division way back and then that carries forward to today. It would probably take full genome analysis AND the availability of the original 'Summit' plant to be able to study and tell whether anyone's 'Summit' today is a division or a clone. This won't happen for a long time, if ever. In the meantime, be happy when a named cultivar turns out to be a great plant at a great price.

Terry, here are the awards I found in OrchidPro for 'Summit' although OrchidPro really makes you work hard to find them all, I think.
#19720689, 12/6/72, AM 80 pts, Mid-Atlantic Monthly Judging, Exhibitor Harrison T. Meserve
#19861094, 12/17/86, FCC 90 pts, Northeast Regional Judging, Exhibitor Benjamin Berliner
#50003240, 6/12/2004, ACC 79 pts, Australia Queensland Judging, Exhibitor Unknown
There are also some cultural awards, but I did not list them.

So, since the AM and the FCC were awarded to different exhibitors (and assuming different plants), then an original division could have come from either of those plants right? Waldor was founded in 1925 by George Off as Brighton Orchids in PA (changed to Waldor in 1952 and moved to NJ) and his two sons Walt and Bill still run it today with their children Amy, Dave and SIL Bill. Their history on their website (under About Us) is very interesting. They were the first to be labeled a Virus Free Nursery back in the 1960s and were leaders in mericloning. Dave is who came and spoke to the VA Orchid Soc. meeting where I first met him and purchased 3 of his plants over a year ago. He is who I spoke to when ordering, regarding the provenance of 'Summit', and he assured me it was an original division they have had for many years. He did say that that the hard part about knowing what you have today (unless meticulous records are kept by growers) is that often good records are not always kept. His family kept meticulous records. So that legacy explains to me why Waldor has so many old awarded original divisions as their operation goes way back in the orchid industry. And perhaps why they can sell them more reasonably, I don't know... but I'm thankful.

One more question: When a plant such as this is awarded an AM and later an FCC a division of either original plant would carry the FCC, correct? And would a plant have to be from the original plant awarded the AM to be considered an original division, or could it come from either the AM awarded or FCC awarded (as long as not a mericlone)?

Or did I make a wrong assumption and would the plant awarded the FCC in 1986 have had to have been the same plant (not an original division) awarded the AM in 1972? It is possible, I guess, as Benjamin Berliner was very prominent at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden (buildings named after him) .

 

[terryros]

You can just search for Cattleya percivaliana 'Summit' in OrchidPro and the entries should all come up.

The different awards don't have to be different plants. The same plant can get an HCC, then an AM, and finally an FCC over time. A plant label should carry the highest award the cultivar has received. Once any 'Summit' plant received an FCC, every 'Summit' plant out there, division or clone, will carry the FCC on the label. That is why the label can't tell you whether you have a division or a clone. Only the provenance tells you. In your case, you have awfully good institutional records and memory telling you that they can trace your plant back division after division to the original 'Summit' plant. Think of divisions making up a family tree (forget clones). Ten generations of divisions down, you can still trace your way back up to the mother plant that started it all.

 

[southernbelle]

You can just search for Cattleya percivaliana 'Summit' in OrchidPro and the entries should all come up.

The different awards don't have to be different plants. The same plant can get an HCC, then an AM, and finally an FCC over time. A plant label should carry the highest award the cultivar has received. Once any 'Summit' plant received an FCC, every 'Summit' plant out there, division or clone, will carry the FCC on the label. That is why the label can't tell you whether you have a division or a clone. Only the provenance tells you. In your case, you have awfully good institutional records and memory telling you that they can trace your plant back division after division to the original 'Summit' plant. Think of divisions making up a family tree (forget clones). Ten generations of divisions down, you can still trace your way back up to the mother plant that started it all.

Thanks, but I still struggle to get the info out of Orchid Pro. The first award that comes up in my full search is the Australian ACC, with unknown exhibitors. Then, I go back and start over twice to find the other two awards. I guess I need to go through the tutorials.

 

[terryros]

I will do a few screenshots and send them to you with instructions.

 

[southernbelle]

I will do a few screenshots and send them to you with instructions.

That’s kind, thanks.

 

[e-spice]

Very pretty and it will likely improve over time. I have 'Summit' FCC and 'Merrill' AM, which is a slightly bigger form.

I also grow them under LEDs. I'm curious what LEDs are you using?

 

[southernbelle]

Very pretty and it will likely improve over time. I have 'Summit' FCC and 'Merrill' AM, which is a slightly bigger form.

I also grow them under LEDs. I'm curious what LEDs are you using?

From Orchids Ltd. amazing lights, you can have the fixtures built to hold 1-6 tubes. I have them for 3 but only have 3 tubes in one (for the highest light cattleyas.). Normal catts are under 2 tubes Paphs under 1.

 

[John M]

‘Summit’ may well have been mericloned, but I think Waldor told Deb that her plant does not come out of a mericloned line.

It's a very beautiful flower! It makes a stunnimg specimen with all the new bulbs in bloom at the same time.

Back in the early 90's, Carter & Holmes had mericlones for sale. Other nurseries probably also made mericlones. It's a highly desirable species and clone.

 

[Ozpaph]

why do you have the lights so far above the plants? You could lower them to increase the 'light exposure' or remove a bulb or two to save electricity. Just a thought

 

[terryros]

Deb and I have worked together on LED lighting. Her tubes have 60 degree beam angle, so much more light is directed down to the plants than with typical bulbs that would radiate out 360 degree around the bulb. Her height is determined by the measured peak photon flux density at the leaves. Her Cattleyas are getting 200-300 micro moles/meter squared/second. Higher amounts would not be helpful and could be detrimental. The number of bulbs also determines the area of light down below. One bulb at a lower height would give enough photons, but it would not be over a wide enough area. However, for lower light orchids, one bulb at the higher level does give 50-100 micro moles/meter squared/sec over a wide enough area.

 

[southernbelle]

why do you have the lights so far above the plants? You could lower them to increase the 'light exposure' or remove a bulb or two to save electricity. Just a thought

I could, but they are about 24” above leaf canopy and I love the headroom. The room is only 10x12 and if they were lower, it would feel very confined to me and I possibly would hit my head on the fixtures depending how low. Plus, when I reach in to lift that tall Laelia in spike, I don’t have to worry about hitting the lights with the leaves or buds. Each tube only uses 42 watts of power so the whole set up uses under 350 watts as it is. Just worth it to me for the headroom. Oh, and as the plants have grown I have had to remove tubes because they are now as high as they can go. Paphs are using 1 tube at that height. Jerry told me 2 tube fixtures was all I needed even for catts. He was right but, I wanted great headroom.

 

[Ozpaph]

good explanation and well thought out strategy. Thanks.

 

[PeteM]

Pretty cool you can grow all that under 350w. I just installed a new led light to replace the last 400w HID metal halide fixture. The new light is from spider farmer sp2000.