description of awarded varieties

[Secundino]

As I understand it, when an award is given to a plant, it gets a distinct clonal name and plant and flower(s) are measured and described. Where can I find this (sometimes quite old) descriptions to compare a flowering plant with its supposedly identical and awarded clone? The search didn't work for me, I think I didn't use the correct key words.
Thanks!

 

[eteson]

Hi Secundino,
I think it can be found in the OrchidWiz Encyclopedia. The problem is that it is a little bit expensive.
Best wishes!

 

[Roy]

It would depend on which country you are in & there recording system.
If it was an Australian awarded plant, the info can be found on the AOC website. The American awards, as mentioned, OrchidWiz, maybe the AOS website?? or some Judging Centres have their own site. It does take some time for this info to appear & the need to wait on updates for Orch'Wiz.

 

[NYEric]

Whena plant is awarded you have the option to give it a clonal name. AQ+ program is available for AOS members, for $50.

 

[Secundino]

Thanks, Eliseo, of course I don't own the OrchidWiz; and I wonder if these old crosses are at all included.
I am trying to find out about the original description of Paphiopedilum Clair de Lune. There are some quotes of this name with an award from the RHS; without clonal name, and others with the awarded 'Edgard Van Belle'. If I'm not wrong, this cross was made/flowered as long ago as in 1927 by Sander.
I now have a plant of 'Edgard Van Belle' FCC RHS CCM AOS 1927. That is what the tag reads. This plant is about to flower and I would like to compare the original description of the first awarded 'Edgard van Belle' with this plant. Perhaps some of you remember that I asked a few months ago if these plants could come from mericlones, for there are quite a lot being sold now in Europe. Compared to other Paphs this cross is a quick grower, but nevertheless it is a slow growing plant. It is not that I want to complain if it turns out to be a 'simple' Clair de Lune or just a Paph. Maudiae. It is just that I like to know the history of the plants I own. Kind of a tribute to the makers of these beauties.
Imagine through how many caring hands this plant must have gone, if it really is a genuine offspring of Paphiopedilum Clair de Lune 'Edgard van Belle'!

 

[reivilos]

Whena plant is awarded you have the option to give it a clonal name. AQ+ program is available for AOS members, for $50.

Errr well, I thought you could always give a clonal name, provided the clone is unnamed.

 

[Ozpaph]

Thanks, Eliseo, of course I don't own the OrchidWiz; and I wonder if these old crosses are at all included.
I am trying to find out about the original description of Paphiopedilum Clair de Lune. There are some quotes of this name with an award from the RHS; without clonal name, and others with the awarded 'Edgard Van Belle'. If I'm not wrong, this cross was made/flowered as long ago as in 1927 by Sander.
I now have a plant of 'Edgard Van Belle' FCC RHS CCM AOS 1927. That is what the tag reads. This plant is about to flower and I would like to compare the original description of the first awarded 'Edgard van Belle' with this plant. Perhaps some of you remember that I asked a few months ago if these plants could come from mericlones, for there are quite a lot being sold now in Europe. Compared to other Paphs this cross is a quick grower, but nevertheless it is a slow growing plant. It is not that I want to complain if it turns out to be a 'simple' Clair de Lune or just a Paph. Maudiae. It is just that I like to know the history of the plants I own. Kind of a tribute to the makers of these beauties.
Imagine through how many caring hands this plant must have gone, if it really is a genuine offspring of Paphiopedilum Clair de Lune 'Edgard van Belle'!

It is very likely to be a genuine division. There must be literally thousands of divisions of this plant around the world.

 

[Ozpaph]

The earliest measurements I can find are from an AM/AOC 1984 - http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/award_display.asp?award=469

 

[Secundino]

Thanks!

 

[littlefrog]

Be aware that your plant's dimensions and even the form of the flower might differ from the award description. Yours might be better! This is very common, even if they are true divisions. Differences in culture are the main reason.

We frequently see plants again, and sometimes they are an improvement over a previously awarded blooming. Sometimes we even give them a new award.

 

[Secundino]

Yes, culture does a lot. But to compare, you need a reference. Until I find the original, I'll take that from Ozpaph. Thanks.

 

[tim]

The original rhs award from 1927 has neither description nor measurements...the aos award from the 1940s may...

 

[Secundino]

The original rhs award from 1927 has neither description nor measurements...

I was afraid of that.:wink:

We'll see soon. The bud is nearly 6 cm long.

 

[Ozpaph]

I showed you the earliest documented award description per Orchid Wiz

 

[Secundino]

For those interested in comparing, these are the measures for the actual flower:

Spike: 385mm
Bract: 30 x 20mm
Ovary: 80mm
High: 124mm
Wide: 118mm
Dorsal: 61 x 80mm
Sepals: 72 x 20mm
Synsepal: 49 x 24mm
Pouch: 63 x 40mm
Staminodium: 18mm wide

 

[jtrmd]

Be aware that your plant's dimensions and even the form of the flower might differ from the award description. Yours might be better! This is very common, even if they are true divisions. Differences in culture are the main reason.

We frequently see plants again, and sometimes they are an improvement over a previously awarded blooming. Sometimes we even give them a new award.

Or they could be worse,which is what I see more of from some of my OS members plants.