However !! ... The main problem with this is that 60 to 70 % of hybrids are not what they are said to be. I have said this before ... And because of me saying this the AOS Judges had a special meeting because of me saying that in most cases they did not even know what they were awarding and should scrap the whole system and start from scratch (.... I still laugh when I think back to that).
I some genera, such as Phragmipedium, that quote may be even much higher.
just to give you some examples:
1) all besseae hybrids ... what have they been made with ...??? besseae, dalessandroi, or a cross between the two??
2) all schlimii hybrids .... what have they been made with ??? ... schlimii ??? cardinale??? sedenii?? we have been through that before,
and what is sedenii??? and therefore what is cardinale?? or Hanne Popow (one has even been awarded as a schlimii)
3) of course alls f2, fn hybrids of the above
4) all longifolium hybrids
5) most "lindleyanum" and "sargenteanum" hybrids .... etc. etc. etc
6) most klotzscheanum hybrids (if not all)
The main point to make here: if we (taxonomists) are expected to take hybrids serious, we must be absolutely certain that
a) the hybrids are that what the hybridizers say it is
b) the parents are documented
c) material of the parents (pieces of leaves, root tips, illustrations of the plants (both vegetative and floral) etc. are put at our disposal.
d) the hybrid lines are started new and are not based on old (therefore uncertain ) plants
regards
Guido
Dr. Guido J. Braem
PS. next articles in Richardiana (France, Europe) , Australian Orchid Review (Australia ... you would not have guessed), Orquideologia (Colombia, South America), and contrary to what some very stupid people claim, I will publish in any country and in any language., and in peer review as well as non peer review.
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
