The Pursuit of Excellence - Anatomy of a Tolumnia

Tolumnias as a genus are very endearing plants that have worldwide appeal. They have a myriad of colour combinations and patterns and I think it’s fair to say that this probably the number one reason that people come to like them so readily. Even if all they initially see is a photo they are often blown away by what snacks them in the eye. And, let’s be honest, what’s not to like?

Then when they learn that they are a small plant that takes up little space meaning that you can feed your orchid addiction by having four -six times as many for the same space as say one cattleya, its happy days. Add to this the fact that you get not just one or two flowers but bunches of them that when the initial flush finishes is replaced by a secondary flowering on branchlets off the original raceme, people quickly realize this is a genera that has been blessed by the Orchid gods.

And so it was with me but I also quickly realized that in terms of type there were about as many different variations out there as there were available colour combinations. Now I’m well aware that there are people out there that don’t care what the flower type looks like. They bought it because it had something they liked. Good, bad or indifferent they liked it then and they like it now. It doesn’t need a blue ribbon to its name to charm the socks of em and that’s fine, I respect that. Heck, I started with five plants that I now know were duds but I just had to have them.

But I also had loftier ambitions, wishing to grow them and eventually show them competitively. What then I began asking, defined a great type Tolumnia from an also ran.

I live in a remote area from the general orchid growing populace and no-one locally grew Tolumnias so I searched high and low and found a mentor – well two actually. One was a breeder/grower and successful showman and the other a breeder/ judge who had a track record of selling many top quality plants to others to grow on from flasks. Between us there is now over 120 years of experience.

All my correspondence with them was via email and phone and this persisted for two years before I got my next Tolumnias, which as it turned out were a gift from one of my mentors who I still believe, sent them to me because he was frustrated with me and all my questions. In the mean time I had learned what it took to grow my original purchases well. It was seven years before I met either of them in person but they have become firm friends and were of immense help in understanding the correct make up of quality Tolumnia.

So here’s tip one- find a mentor who has a track record of producing the goods and listen carefully to what they say, but keep an open mind. Don’t let distance or isolation stop you- technology makes a meal of this nowadays. It’s not the same as being Johnny on the Spot but it’s a close second and I can honestly see this site as providing a hook up point for mentors and protégées in the future.

Once I had reasonable idea of what I believed the ideal Tolumnia was I turned to the Australian Orchid Council Guidelines for Judging and it was here that I learned just why there is so much type variation among Tolumnias. To my surprise, there is no specific guideline for this genus and they are judged by the appreciation method against a catch all guideline for Other Type Oncidiums as distinct from Odontoglossum, Miltoniopsis and Varicosum shapes.

The preamble to the Other Type Oncidium guidelines says:

Due to the diversity of the Oncidium genus it is not possible to judge all species and hybrids by the above (previously mentioned) standards. Where species or hybrids obviously do not comply with the above standards, they are to be judged using the appreciation method. This method requires a good working knowledge of the species and genera involved.

Within that paragraph lies the explanation for the lack of a uniform Tolumnia type. Firstly, Tolumnia were originally based around five species, namely pulchellum, triquetrum, urophyllum, guianense and henekenii as the foundation stones of the genera. However as Goodalle Moir (the originator of modern Tolumnia) progressed with his hybridizing even more were introduced until at least 25-30 different species had been used and modern hybridists have and are, introducing still more.

So the Tolumnia is indeed a complicated plant. Sure it has evolved to the point of consistency in terms of its vegetation in that once seen they are recognizable as such by their foliage and root systems but the floral diversity among the species used in their construction has led to extreme variation in their genetic makeup. The original five species were complex and divergent enough from one another but add to this the various proportional influences or omissions of the other species in any given plant and you have the recipe for any extremely wide range of phenotypes depending upon just how the genetic material lines up in any given seedling.

Secondly, is the phrase -good working knowledge of the species and genera involved. As judges how much working knowledge can one possess? Even after all my breeding efforts I can lay claim to recognizing the traits of only 10 to 12 of the species and still would not be confident in stating with certainty which of these show genetic dominance or otherwise over any other.

While the popularity of Tolumnia is happily on the rise I would venture to suggest that very few of the accredited judges actually have a good working knowledge and the understanding which they do posses heavily influences their selections such that awards are made that perhaps could not justified in the presence of clear guidelines.

I make the above comment not as a criticism but as an explanation. I believe all judges do the best job they are capable of and act in the interests of Orchid enthusiasts because Orchids are something that they are passionate about. However, with some 25,000 or more species it’s a hell of an ask to expect anyone to have a good working knowledge of all the species behind every hybrid genera they are asked to judge.

Nevertheless, what became obvious to me after a while was that the very best Tolumnia had very similar attributes the world over. This led me to believe that while the wording in the respective Standards of Excellence might be different from country to country or indeed even wide open to interpretation there must be a set of commonalities, albeit with slight or semantic variation since they seemed to arrive at similar end points.

To that end I propose to lead you through the relevant parts of the Australian Orchid Council Judging Guidelines for Other Type Oncidiums (as inadequate as I believe it to be) and relying on my own experience and that of my mentors expand upon that which is not clearly spelled out in the guidelines to build a pictorial representation of an ideal flower.

Please note that what I am attempting here is to show the perfect flower which as far as I know has not been done before for this genera. So let’s be clear at the outset. What follows is my understanding in so far as the perfect hybrid Tolumnia is concerned and it is a representation of the mental picture that I breed to. Oh, and by the way, I use the term Tolumnia holistically to include Tolumnia, Rodrumnia and Zelemnia.

It is not however sanctioned by any official organisation although a clear standard of excellence with an appropriate drawing is something I would welcome. You are free to accept or reject what you are about to read and see.

With apologies up front for my (lack of) drawing and geometric skills let’s get started with the all important shape. The Guidelines state;

SHAPE

The flower shall be symmetrical in the vertical plane. It shall be balanced. Reflexing or furling is undesirable but the influence of the parents must be considered.

Doesn’t tell us much does it? Thankfully my mentors did. They stressed that a great Tolumina must be round and fill a circle. All segments should be as full as possible and all should be held in a similar plane with no part projecting markedly forward of any other.

The sepals should be broad and upstanding. There should be no or minimal gap between themselves and the petals which in turn should fill the gap between themselves and the labellum.

Cupping of the flowers and hooding of the dorsal sepal is just as undesirable as reflexing and furling.

Weak and spindly sepals detract from the fullness and should be avoided.

The labellum should itself be round to compliment the overall roundness of the flowers with the widest point coinciding with an imaginary horizontal line bisecting the centre of the circle.

The edges may be waved or serrated but should not posses any serious break in the outline except at the six o’clock position where an indentation or small split is allowable although covering of the dent/split by overlapping of one side is favored.

Those few sentences pack a wealth of information in them starting with the fact that the flower should be vertically symmetrical, balanced, round and fill a circle. So let’s start there.

Figure one shows us that circle and a vertical line through its centre about which we build our symmetry. I have drawn this all within a 90mm diameter circle just because it makes defining proportions easier. You will note that I have put three different coloured parts into the circle. Black representing the sepals, blue the all important column, stigma and anther cap and the red line representing as yet incomplete petals. But how have I arrived at these locations?

The truth is they are derived from the average measurements from hundreds of actual flowers. Yes, you can call me anal if you like but this is what I do. I just can’t help it- I have a background in statistics.

The centre of the stigma is located at a point ¼ of the total diameter of the flower from the top of the circle.

The base of the column emanates from the connection point of the pedicle (the supporting stem between the flower and the main raceme) and is also the lower point from which the sepals’ spring. It is ideally also where the petals have their upper junction. This point is 1/3rd of the diameter of the circle down from the top and is marked on the drawing by the point where the red (petal line) crosses the column.

You will note that I have drawn the sepals to be quite broad as suggested and that the lateral sepals overlap the dorsal. I have shown this as a dashed line but in reality I find this very hard to achieve. Note though, that if the lateral sepals connect from this point 1/3rd the way down there will be little chance of any gap between them and the petals as is suggested.

I would however like to spend a little time discussing the sepals as they are the most neglected part of the flower often taking a distant second place to the flashy and physically dominant labellum even among judges.

Readers will note that the guidelines say nothing about the actual shape of the sepals and this is probably because there is huge variation among them. Sepal shape is heavily influenced by the genetic dominance of the species in the background of the hybrid.

Let’s look at the sepal shape of the five foundation species as shown in the attached pictures.

Note not only the variation among them but in particular the lack of breadth and size of the dorsal sepal relative to the laterals in all cases. Little wonder that it is so hard to obtain much breadth in the dorsal sepals.

But let’s now look at the sepal shape and arrangement of some modern hybrids and compare them back to the species.

With the possible exception of henekenii the influence of the forebearers in the hybrids is fairly evident in the appearance of the sepals. However there is considerably more variation than is shown in these photos depending upon just what the species mix is in the particular hybrid.

Take for example the 6 pictures below.

Variability in sepal shape of Tolumnia

Now let’s suppose the quest for broad and full sepals as suggested for the ideal flower is accepted. Of the five foundation species the most likely candidates for passing on breadth and fullness to their progeny are pulchella, triquetra and guianensis or at least combinations of them. Only selective attention to increased dorsal sepal proportions by hybridizers will bring about any significant improvement to this characteristic excepting of course, a fortuitous chance mutation.

Many of the secondary species (ie berenyce, calochilum, haitaensis, tetarpetallum, variegatum etc, etc) used in the background of modern hybrids carry with them narrow sepal segments and while their relative percentage contributions to the whole might individually be very small their combined weighting could be quite significant. This has resulted in a plethora of perhaps otherwise good flowers with full well shaped petals and labellums that are hindered and unbalanced by weak and spindly top segments.

By their very construction weak sepals are prone to allow significant gaps between themselves and the petals.

As stated, I have never seen it recorded nor heard it articulated what the preferred shape of the sepals is. However, if pushed for a personal preference I would without hesitation elect the pulchellum or guianensis types (or a blend of the two) over a triquetra and certainly over urophyllum or henekenii type. This is simply because of the breadth associated with the first two and their associated naturally rounder proportions and tendency to be held more to the 10 o’clock -2 o’clock locations.

The rounder profiles are to my mind more in keeping with the general roundness of the flower as a whole and their placement seems to make the whole flower presentation look stronger and more bold.

By contrast, strong triquetra types while they can be quite broad are also angular in shape thus departing from the general roundness. They also tend to be held more frequently in a horizontal 3 o’clock- 9 o’clock orientation. If they are sufficiently strong, this orientation can mean that they dominate the top portion of the flower to the point where they are almost as wide as the labellum and so break the circular outline of the flower. Finally they can tend to beetle brow over the top of the petals like an old man with out of control bushy eyebrows.

Nevertheless, all other things being equal, I would elect for this type of sepal shape and arrangement every time before one with thin, spindly top segments no matter how well placed they might be.

I hope I have given cause for thought and consideration on this point. You may have different views but in any event my advice is to pay more attention to petal shape- they add more to the construction of a good Tolumnia than has perhaps been previously considered.

Returning now to figure 1 and moving on to the incomplete petals. I have drawn them as having the top of their connection point coinciding with the base of the column and the connection point of the sepals at the pedicle attachment, all of which is located 1/3 of the way down the circle from the top.

From here each petal should extend outwards horizontally for a short distance until they sweep upwards to cover the bottom edge of the lateral sepals in a small but pronounced bulge before descending downwards again. The petals should never extend to the outer edge of the circle but should stop somewhere between ½ and ¾ of way out so that there is a pronounced break in the outline of the circle. This provides clear and certain definition to the upper and lower flower segments.

The petals have deliberately been drawn as incomplete in figure one because they are in fact fused with the labellum and the bottom portion is partially hidden by it, but not separate from it.

The petals have been completed in Figure two which also shows the labellum in green. While shorter than the sepals, the petals should similarly be broad and the bottom edge of the petals and springing point for the shoulders of the labellum should be one and the same place.

Just as the petals sweep upwards so to should the labellum rise gradually upwards at an oblique angle from its junction with the petal, covering it, until it reaches a point that is approximately half way up the petal before beginning a gentle and graceful curve downwards towards the circumference of the circle. It should then continue around to complete the circle with both sides meeting with a small upward indentation as one side covers the other or failing this a barely noticeable split at the six o’clock position.

The circumference of the circle shall not be blemished by breaks, bulges, unnecessary dents or areas of flatness. Neither, should it curl backwards or cup unduly forwards.

If all proportions are correct the widest part of the labellum should coincide with the diameter of the circle at its centre point.

Figure 2:

The hidden portion of the petal (dashed red line) provides important support for the shoulders of the labellum and stops them from curling backwards. Unsightly gaps between the petal and labellum are the result of a lack of fullness in the bottom portion of the petal or the angle of rise of the labellum up to the shoulder is too shallow. Or, worse still a lack of fullness to both.

Examples of these are shown below.

Lack of fullness to bottom of petal – no support to shoulders of labellum

Angle of rise to shoulders of labellum too shallow- petals partially cover the labellum and shoulders reflex backwards.

No fullness to petals and angle of rise to shoulders of labellum too shallow. Unsightly gap and note one petal forward while other is behind the shoulder of the labellum.

So we have now essentially built the ideal flower at least in terms of geometric lines and the all important symmetry. Boring maybe, but vital for our understanding of what constitutes an ideal flower. All that remains as far as shape is concerned is to complete the picture with a few embellishments. So let’s go ahead and add the serrated wavy edge, the 6 o’clock labellum cover and a touch of colour.

Take a look at Figure 3 and then tell me that it doesn’t pop even with my crude pre -school colouring.

Figure 3: The Ideal Tolumnia Flower.

But shape is not the be all and end all to our quest for the ideal Tolumnia. Fortunately, the Australian Orchid Council guidelines are more explicit and presumably on firmer ground in relation to many of the other characteristics of an award worthy plant. The guidelines for colour, texture and substance are shown below.

Colour and Texture:

To be granted a quality award, the colour of the flower(s) must be worthy of that award.

The texture of the segments modifies the visual impact of the colour so much that they must be considered together. The quality of the colour is important, not its shade. All colour shades and combinations are accepted, but should be attractive and appealing. All markings should be well defined; smudges, blurring or bleeding of one colour into another is not desired. Clarity and vibrancy of the colour or colour combination is especially important. Personal preference for say, pastel tones, reds, or dark tones etc., must not be allowed to influence the judgment.

The texture of the surfaces should enhance the colours, making them lustrous or glistening, perhaps imparting a crystalline appearance. A dull or matt surface is likely to reduce the impact of the colour and so be a handicap for the flower. The colour may be matching or contrasting.

Comment:

a) The colour of all the flowers shall be consistent. Excessive variation shall be penalized.

b) Any markings or spots shall be clear, distinct, not running into the main colour and relatively balanced about the vertical centre line.

Substance:

Substance refers to the firmness of the plant tissue as well as the keeping qualities of the flower. Segments shall be firm and of sufficient strength to hold themselves correctly in the required shape.

Size and Floriferousness:

The AOC Guidelines state:

Information from references should be sought, since many hybrids being grown result from little grown species and each grex has its own set of characteristics. Details of previously awarded plants, both nationally and overseas are a reliable guide.

It is important to remember that this Guideline is not specific to Tolumnia’s and is an attempt to provide a modicum of order to a melting pot of types that don’t fit into the more popular nominated Oncidium groups. As such it provides limited information.

However, reference to the data for AOC awarded plants and some number crunching does provide us with some real and meaningful guides, assuming we accept that all measures were accurate and completed consistently. For the purpose of this exercise I have included all awarded plants (ie HCC, AM and FCC) for the period 1986 -2016 where data is given. Interestingly no FCC’s were granted in this period.

In terms of data for flower size this amounts to 16 plants and flower widths were found to range from 23- 38mm (that’s 0.91-1.5 inches for those people in countries with imperial measures) with an average width across the sample of 30.3mm (or 1.19 inches). Interestingly, of the four smallest measures (23, 24, 24, & 26) the first two were in 1986 and 1987 while the next two were 2008 and 2012 respectively. Outside of these measures the remainder had a range of 30-38mm (or 1.18- 1.5 inches) for an average of 33mm (or 1.3 inches). This suggests that there has been a preference for increased flower size over time but that smaller flowers around the 25mm (0.98 inches) should not be discounted given excellence in other areas.

Flower counts were unfortunately not given for all awarded plants and only 12 were considered for analysis with two of these being removed as glaring outliers making an eventual sample size of 10 plants. These two will be discussed separately under the later section on habit and arrangement.

For the sake of consistency the total number of flowers and buds was divided by the stated number of inflorescences to arrive at an average flower count per inflorescence per plant rounded down to the nearest whole number. The range was 10- 28 flowers per inflorescence with an average of 15.4 flowers per inflorescence. None of the flowers in the sample was less than 30mm (1.18 inches).

It is worth noting however that there were two examples within this sample that carried 28 flowers each while the remainder carried between 10-13 flowers (for an average of 11.9) and these two plants may have skewed the average upwards somewhat. I’ve often heard it stated that the larger the flowers become the less floriferous the plant will also be.

These two plants make a misnomer of that statement since both plants have the largest measures at 38mm (1.5 inches) and bear no familiaral relationship to one another being originally bred 23 years apart. One (Keysha Oka) carries just four species in its background while the other (Sylvia’s Dream) carries nine.

Their evolution is markedly different. While they do share 4 species in common it is not until one journey’s five generations back that the same species (triquetra) occurs simultaneously in their pedigrees. The point is that we should not settle for lower flower counts just because we are seeking larger more showy flowers even if the average seems be around 12 flowers as a norm. These two examples suggest that it clearly possible to have your cake and eat it too.

The only question in my mind is how much of the large flower count is due to genetics and how much is due to the skill of the growers in coaxing the absolute best out of their plants through superior culture? We may never know.

To sum up this section, the analysis above allows us to set an empirical basis as a minimum standard for the ideal Tolumnia as far as flower size and acceptable flower counts are concerned for award worthy plants. While my sample sizes are not great and could benefit from the inclusion of greater numbers they are nevertheless robust enough to make some base line suggestions.

For flower size the averages indicate that 30mm (1.18 inches) is an acceptable starting point with an emphasis on still larger flowers being sought but that smaller flowers down to about 25mm (1 inch) would not be discounted given strong attributes in all other areas.

Averages for flower counts imply that 12 flowers per inflorescence should be considered a minimum for modern Tolumnia but the desire is really to see as many flowers as possible per inflorescence in the quest for the most floriferous plants possible.

Habit and Arrangement:

Returning to the AOC Guidelines they state- This is an important feature. It is the nature of some species to produce flowers towards the end of the inflorescence. This shall not be considered a fault provided that the flowers are all in one plane and evenly distributed around that portion of the inflorescence. The flowers shall not be bunched or crowded.

My mentors coached me to believe that there is an ideal presentation for an inflorescence and it comprises two parts (habit and arrangement) in so far as the ideal Tolumnia is concerned. Unfortunately there is one part of the guidelines that is at odds with that teaching.

Let’s work through this. I certainly agree that the habit and arrangement of the inflorescence is an important feature. In fact, I think correct habit and arrangement as conjoined bedfellows is vital to great presentation since it is certainly possible (in fact common) to have one without the other and thus have a markedly diminished outcome.

The whole purpose of flowers is to draw attention to an otherwise small and physically unremarkable plant. What point then is there in seeking more and larger flowers if they are poorly presented?

What habit then allows for a great presentation? I have been coached to look for a raceme to be sufficiently long enough to carry flowers over at least 25% of its length and carry them above and or clear of the foliage. In practice, I find this to amounts to an overall length of 350- 500mm (14-20 inches). I despise Tolumnia with excessively long racemes that require the use of a step ladder to view them or that need to be placed near the ground in order to accommodate ever lengthening growth before finally flowering.

Ideally the raceme should rise from the base of the leaf axis at an angle of perhaps 30-45 degrees and then arch slightly downwards or at least flatten to the horizontal for that portion of the raceme that will eventually hold the flowers.

If there are multiple racemes each should be held clear of the other so that they may be viewed independently without interference from their neighbour. This may require intervention and manipulation by the grower.

Arrangement then, refers to the placement of the flowers on the raceme to compliment the habit such that the whole inflorescence presents as well as possible. In order for this to happen with 12 (or many more) flowers they need to be spaced such that they are slightly separate and clear of one another- and this is where I take exception to the wording of the guidelines.

While I acknowledge that it is the nature of some species to produce flowers towards the end of the inflorescence, ie triquetra for example which is notorious for a mass of clustered flowers at the end of the raceme, I also do not readily accept that this shall not be considered a fault provided that the flowers are all in one plane and evenly distributed around that portion of the inflorescence.

This is almost an oxy-moron since it is virtually impossible to have 12 or more flowers held at the end of a raceme, have them evenly distributed in one plane without being crowded and still produce a bunched effect that looks akin to a toffee apple on a stick.

Assume for a moment that we have 12 flowers each of 25mm (1 inch) that are well placed on each side of the end of the raceme. To be so, each flower should be slightly separated from its neighbor such that they don’t touch (crowd) one another. Let’s therefore allow a physical space of 28mm (1-1/8th inch) for each flower to occupy. With 6 blooms down each side the flowers would therefore occupy 168mm (6-3/4 inches) of length on the raceme.

If this is achieved on a raceme length of 350- 500mm (14-20 inches) it cannot possibly appear as if the flowers are produced on the end of the inflorescence. I would therefore argue that flowers presented as a wad on the end of a raceme should definitely be considered a fault since it is difficult to imagine they could appear this way without being anything other than bunched or crowded.

While it is inconceivable that there exists a modern Tolumnia without triquetra in its background it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that selective attention to flower arrangement could see the poor triquetra like presentations become an oddity rather than common place.

There is however more to arrangement than just the spacing mentioned above.

As stated, as a minimum guide the flowers should occupy 25-30% of the total raceme length. The pedicles themselves should be placed in a staggered pattern along the raceme and hold the flower so that they all tilt very slightly upward to directly face the viewer regardless of the placement of the pedicle. That is, they should all be on the one plane as desired by the Guidelines.

The finished presentation should appear voluminous and have one flower on the very end so that the observers eyes can travel around the inflorescence without it appearing as though there is a distinct break from one side to the other. That is, it should appear as a single flowing unit not two distinct sides that make it appear somewhat disjointed. No flower should ever face straight up or down.

I have attempted to show these ideal characteristics diagrammatically in the drawings below.

Figure 4: Section of raceme showing the desired staggered arrangement of pedicles along one side of its length

Figure 5: Plan view of the ideal flower arrangement and spacing on a raceme.

Having described the ideal presentation as I understand it let me also say that this is surely one of the hardest attributes to actually achieve. Really great presentations are very, very hard to find but once seen they are never forgotten. They truly are in a league of their own even if the flowers themselves are not up to scratch in terms of shape or other characteristics.

Two Inflorescences: neither with good flower shape but both showing the staggered arrangement of the pedicles with flowers held in the one plane. Top inflorescence a little too widely spaced. Bottom inflorescence a little crowded.

In the section on flower size and floriferousness I mentioned two plants that I removed from the sample as obvious outliers to be discussed further in this section. Both plants had flower counts of 40 and 44 flowers respectively. Now you would have to agree that’s terrific so why you might ask would I remove them from a sample that was analyzing flower counts?

What if I told you that each of these flower counts was recorded on a single inflorescence! That’s roughly 30-40% more flowers per inflorescence than the highest number in the rest of the sample (28) which were themselves nearly twice as floriferous as the remainder of the sample plants. I’m guessing that like me you would have to pick your jaw up off the ground in the first instance and then maybe you would ask – what the hell is so different about these plants?

I went back and looked again at the plants and found that these two examples were in fact different cultivars of the same grex (Ky-Elle’s Dream) and when I examined the photos of the plants I found that they had a completely different raceme habit to that which I have just described above and had been coached to accept as ideal.

These plants branched strongly from the main raceme and had all their flowers borne on pedicles arranged on these branches, with each branch carrying 6 or more blooms. In other words the branch of these plants filled the roll of the raceme itself in the previously described presentation. The raceme was quite upstanding and the branches themselves tended to be relatively long.

Figure 6: Diagram of the branched habit of Ky-Elle’s Dream

One plant held them erect so that the flowers appeared as a crown of flowers on a tree while the other held them arched downwards to display the flowers over the last half of the branch length.

I then turned to the genealogy of the plants and their species composition relative to the other plants in the sample. The one glaring difference appeared to be that the Ky-Elle’s Dream plants carried a 12.5% dose of henekenii while the next closest plant carried 2.3%. All other sample plants were either devoid of henekenii or carried it in doses below 2%.

I find this very interesting but am far from sure if it really explains the branching habit of this grex particularly since I was not aware that henekenii had a branching habit that it could pass on.

I have only ever seen 3 in flower and my recollection is that they had a longer pedicle than normal but not what I would describe as a branch and certainly not with multiple flowers coming off the pedicle so for now the origin of this habit must remain a mystery.

A group picture of 12 different cultivars of this grex appears on OrchidWiz and of the group 10 display the arched branch habit while the remaining two exhibit the floral crown.

My point to this discussion of Ky-Elle’s Dream is that while I still elect for a habit and arrangement that allows for a presentation such as I initially described perhaps some latitude should be given for an alternate presentation that allows for a branched habit as seems prolific in this grex.

Of the two Ky-Elles Dream presentations I find the arched habit more pleasing simply because the flowers appear less crowded and seem to look at you rather than you having to crane your neck to see them well. Should this have any merit I would certainly elect to favour the arched presentation over the floral crown. Nevertheless, there is no denying the floriferousness of the plants.

So folks- there you have it- the collective thoughts of 120 plus years of breeding experience in the quest to describe the ideal Tolumnia. Bear in mind that the ideal Tolumnia has never been produced – it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be that far away star that is theoretically possible to reach yet remains tantalizingly just a fingers breadth away.

I lament the lack of an official standard and if you’re even halfway serious about growing, showing or breeding Tolumnia so should you. Imagine you were a dart player without a regulation score board to aim at. I have no doubt that you would hit the wall but the darts would be all over the place. So it is with these guys.

You can’t pursue excellence until you clearly know what you’re chasing. All that I have presented explains what I and several others are chasing. As I said at the outset you may reject it if you wish, but please don’t do so out of hand. At least put forward a well thought out alternative and get a discussion going.

It is my fervent hope that the collective power of our thoughts and the worldwide participation of the membership of this fraternity might drive the creation and acceptance of an International Standard of Perfection for the legacy of Goodalle Moir who turned weeds into dazzling little jewels.

Allan Hutchins

Karisma Orchids, Australia