How (and where - see below) to judge Phalaenopsis

"Change is characteristic of all living things. The American Orchid Society’s system of judging has been developed to grant recognition to new and superior forms of orchid species and to improved forms of orchid hybrids. (…) Ideal flower form (is an) elusive goal that hybridizers strive to achieve. Judges must be knowledgeable of basic species used in hybridizing and the expected results of their use in breeding, and they must keep current on developments in modern hybridizing."

Anita Aldrich wrote these words in the foreward to the 10^th edition of the Handbook on Judging.

This commentary is about judging novelty Phalaenopsis, based upon novelty Phalaenopsis, mainly but not exclusively those from Taiwan. Before going further, we have to examine the reason for the "sudden" outburst of the Taiwanese novelty Phalaenopsis that we are now seeing.

In the ’60s and ’70s, people such as Irene Dobkin, John Ewing and Charles Beard made hybrids that were milestones of their day. Charles Beard passed on, John Ewing lost most of the business and Irene Dobkin stopped hybridizing at a certain point.

The average North American Phalaenopsis nursery can readily sell standard Phalaenopsis but, as a noted Phalaenopsis nurseryman once said, "We can’t sell a plant with one or two flowers, no matter how red they are." In Japan, the public seeks out huge – the larger, the better – white Phalaenopsis but, in Taiwan (and in Chinese culture in general), white is the color of mourning. Yellow is the color of gold (in other words, wealth) and red is the color of good luck and success.

A plant with red or yellow flowers, no matter how few, will sell easily in Taiwan and, if it was high quality, for a very healthy price. The Taiwanese purchased many available breeding plants and were also able to procure many high-quality plants from people such as Irene Dobkin, who did not want to sell them to her competitors in the US. The Taiwanese then began growing and hybridizing Phalaenopsis. They slowly built up a very large export industry, currently shipping literally millions of plants a year to Japan and other points in Asia, as well as an ever-increasing number to the U.S. In Asia, plants are shipped in the pot and sphagnum they are growing in – boxed in Taiwan in the morning and unboxed elsewhere that same day.  Application has been made to the USDA to do the same over here.

In the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, the Taiwanese phalaenopsis remained almost exclusively in Asia. Some North Americans (who had other business interests in Taiwan) began to bring some to the US and ultimately sold some Taiwanese phalaenopsis in the very late ’80s. Taiwan was a country with many small (backyard-type) nurseries. Land is scarce and very expensive. Because of this, every nursery wants to be guaranteed that the plants that they have available will be easy to sell. Few people hybridize, and even fewer do it on any kind of scale. With the exception of about five people, no one has a track record of any length.

The implications of this are extremely important. Almost everything grown and everything available was and remains a meristem. (This is slowly changing.) Plants that were colorful, floriferous and had heavy substance were tissue cultured in mind-boggling quantities – literally. Some of them you’ve probably seen and know, such as Phal. Ho’s Happy Auckland ‘Song’ which initially received an HCC and was recently upgraded to an AM. But clonal names are often dropped completely or drastically shortened. Phal. George Vasquez ‘E’ is available there. Most of you know it as George Vasquez ‘Eureka’, FCC/AOS. The practical result of the dropped and shortened clonal names is confusion. The same plants are being awarded by the AOS more than once: take the following two examples. Phal. Kuangfeng’s Queen is a hybrid of George Vasquez and Eye Catcher. The clone ‘Liu Hua Tong’ received an 81-point AM/AOS in Taiwan and recently this same plant, this time masquerading as the clone ‘LHT’, received an 80-point AM in the US. Phal. Brother Dawn ‘C.Y.’ has been awarded three times with different names – as the clone ‘Cy’ (a man’s name), it received an HCC of 75 points in 1994. In March, 1995, at the Santa Barbara Show, this same clone, this time with the name ‘C.Y.’ (the real clonal name) received an AM of 81 points. One month later, same plant, this time named ‘CY’ (no periods), received another AM of 81 points.

Be wary of some plants from Taiwan. Terrible to say but some of the Taiwanese vendors are not honest. One vendor has a particularly bad reputation. If you ask him for any particular plant, he says, "Have. Have. Here. Wrong label in plant. I make good label." When these plants show up on the judging table, pandemonium will reign. Previously, plants of Phal. Brother Rose ‘Brother’ were sold mistakenly as Phal. Brother Delight ‘Brother’; plants of Phal. Brother Sandra ‘Brother’ were available for sale despite the fact that the plant in question has never been mericloned.

In general, the Taiwanese did not know nor particularly care about the AOS judging system. That is slowly changing and the reason is financial. A plant with an award is eminently more saleable in North America.

The hybridizers in Taiwan have been breeding for about forty years but, to us here in North America, where novelties are often few and far between, unaware of the progress that had been made in Taiwan, when the Taiwanese phalaenopsis "immigration" began, we were overwhelmed. When the Taiwanese realized the potential in the North American market and we truly realized the quality of the available plants, the influx began in earnest. Now, how do we judge these plants?

First, let me say that judging is basically a subjective process. In judging Phalaenopsis, size and floriferousness are objective – they are both easily measurable and quantifiable. Anyone can count the number of flowers on an inflorescence or measure the size of the flowers. Each of these categories counts for 10 out of the 100 points possible for any Phalaenopsis. It is a fact that every clerk and every student immediately takes out a ruler to measure the size of a flower. They know they cannot be wrong. This is objective and they are always right when they say that this flower is bigger or smaller than another or that there are more or fewer flowers. How many times have each of us (the author included) asked, "How large is it?" or "How does it compare?" That’s fine but it’s also ONLY 10 points. How often do we say, "How does the form compare?" "Is the color as good? . . . and form and color each count for 30 points.

With regard to size, the Handbook states, "The size of the flower should be equal to or greater than the geometric mean of the size of the parents." That’s should, not must. At least one Phal. breeder-judge has stated that, in breeding multifloras, larger is not necessarily better. Intense color is often accompanied by smaller size. Color is 30 points while size is only 10 points. Therefore, small size in itself should not preclude a plant from being awarded (or even nominated), especially in the presence of great color.

We regularly award first-bloom Paphiopedilum. People say that a Paphiopedilum blooming for the second time is usually 10 to 15% larger (often more) than the first blooming. Nevertheless, when talking about a first-bloom Paphiopedilum, I have rarely heard any judge say, "Bring it back when it grows up."

FLORIFEROUSNESS

Sc. Beaufort is a hybrid of Soph. coccinea and C. luteola. When Sc. Beaufort ‘Elizabeth’ bloomed for the first time, it had a single flower. The judges wanted to recognize it but felt that a single flower on a C. luteola hybrid could not be given a quality award. It received a JC.

Sc. Chester is Sc. Beaufort bred back to its parent, Soph. coccinea, making it (statistically) ¾ Soph. coccinea. Although Soph. coccinea is single flowered, both awarded plants of Sc. Chester had two flowers on one inflorescence. Now, if we can get two flowers on Sc. Chester, shouldn’t we expect at least two flowers on other Sc. Beaufort hybrids? However, at least four hybrids of Sc. Beaufort, Sc. June Bug (x C. bicolor), Slc. Jillian Lee (x Sl. Orpetii), Slc. Cosmo-Beau (x Sl. Mini-Purple) and Slc. Jack Crawford (x Pot. Jim Krull) have received awards to single-flowered cultivars. Recently, one cultivar of Paph. Angel Hair, a hybrid of Paph. St. Swithin and Paph. sanderianum, was awarded an AM with 2 flowers!

With regard to floriferousness of Phalaenopsis, the handbook states, "The number of flowers will vary according to the species, or breeding." There is no minimum. I have heard judges talking about whites with 20 flowers. A review of the Awards Quarterly from 20 years ago shows that our memories are playing tricks on us. Some species are not particularly floriferous. Phal. venosa and Phal. violacea, to name a couple, rarely have more than two flowers (if that) open on an inflorescence at any one time. Their hybrids may be few flowered, depending of course on the other parent. This is NOT a fault.

When a judge says that he or she would never award a Phalaenopsis with only two flowers is he/she showing good judgment or close-minded ignorance?  

The Northeast Judging Region awarded only 7 Phalaenopsis in 1999.  There are 24 monthly judgings and about a dozen shows, including the huge New York Show.  Are Phalaenopsis getting a fair shake or are the phalaenopsis being exhibited of less-than-awardable quality?

Where Phalaenopsis are judged

The AOS has about thirty (30) judging centres where the judges meet every month. Exhibitors can bring plants in to judge. In most of these centres, the judging process is open to the public and anyone can watch as their plant is being judged. Check out the AOS site (http://www.orchidweb.org) to find out when and where judging will take place.

In addition, all orchids are judged at AOS-judged shows. A list of AOS-sanctioned shows is also on the AOS site.