Cattleya trianae alba ‘Broomhill’

[NEslipper]

Famous old white breeder. Most notable as a grandparent of Cattleya Bow Bells. This variety is not know for having the best form, but it was a fertile breeder and bred white offspring, so it became very important for hybridizing. Pretty much any big, white hybrid line can probably be traced back to this plant. Nicely fragrant to boot!

 

[dodidoki]

Great form!!!I live it!

 

[monocotman]

Love it. Great form and colour! A bit of orchid history,
David

 

[Guldal]

Love it. Great form and colour! A bit of orchid history,
David

Hear , hear!

 

[LadySlipper]

Stunning, love it.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Pure breeding white species were a rarity in the past so any that bred true were highly prized.

This particular cultivar was and IMO still a good shape for this category.

Very nicely bloomed!

 

[LO69]

Awesome! Always loved White cattleya.

 

[BrucherT]

Famous old white breeder. Most notable as a grandparent of Cattleya Bow Bells. This variety is not know for having the best form, but it was a fertile breeder and bred white offspring, so it became very important for hybridizing. Pretty much any big, white hybrid line can probably be traced back to this plant. Nicely fragrant to boot!View attachment 30763View attachment 30764View attachment 30765View attachment 30766

Thrilling. What a joy to see a species plant with such a venerable history. Thank you.

 

[Happypaphy7]

What a beauty indeed! I love the shape very much!

 

[Ozpaph]

still, a very nice flower. Thanks for the history.

 

[NEslipper]

Thanks for the comments! I tend to agree with everyone in thinking that it actually has really nice form. Not sure why it gets such a bad rap for lousy form!

 

[GuRu]

White and a good shape......love it.

 

[My Green Pets]

Freakin' gorgeous. Where'd it come from?

 

[abax]

The bad rap is probably because "judges" are very picky about the shape of the
dorsal. However, the flower is beautiful anyway.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

The bad rap is probably because "judges" are very picky about the shape of the
dorsal. However, the flower is beautiful anyway.

There are many reasons why this cultivar had a reputation. But they don't always stem from judges but from human's need for perfection. This includes hybridizers and collectors too.

The dorsal isn't really the issue. You can see from the second pic that the dorsal is good.

From the standpoint of the critics, these are the drawbacks that I observed and gleaned over the last few decades:

1. the inconsistency between flowers on the same plants and from other divisions (shape and size).
2. the crowding of the floral presentation in a mature plant
3. the straggly growth pattern of the tall thin pseudobulbs with long rhizomes.

From the standpoint of the species aficionado, like many here (and myself), this plant is a gem.

 

[NEslipper]

The division came from Orchid Alley

Freakin' gorgeous. Where'd it come from?

 

[NEslipper]

Thank you for the detailed analysis! It is interesting how the dorsal rolled right up on one flower, and stayed perfectly flat on the other - I guess that speaks to the inconsistencies you mentioned. I wonder what causes that? Environmental or genetic?

The growth habit is indeed very scraggly, especially compared to the newer tetraploid trianae with their squat leaves and perfectly round clumps of pseudobulbs. A naive question though, why would that impact judging for a flower quality award? Can’t one send in cut flowers for judging?

There are many reasons why this cultivar had a reputation. But they don't always stem from judges but from human's need for perfection. This includes hybridizers and collectors too.

The dorsal isn't really the issue. You can see from the second pic that the dorsal is good.

From the standpoint of the critics, these are the drawbacks that I observed and gleaned over the last few decades:

1. the inconsistency between flowers on the same plants and from other divisions (shape and size).
2. the crowding of the floral presentation in a mature plant
3. the straggly growth pattern of the tall thin pseudobulbs with long rhizomes.

From the standpoint of the species aficionado, like many here (and myself), this plant is a gem.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Thank you for the detailed analysis! It is interesting how the dorsal rolled right up on one flower, and stayed perfectly flat on the other - I guess that speaks to the inconsistencies you mentioned. I wonder what causes that? Environmental or genetic?

The growth habit is indeed very scraggly, especially compared to the newer tetraploid trianae with their squat leaves and perfectly round clumps of pseudobulbs. A naive question though, why would that impact judging for a flower quality award? Can’t one send in cut flowers for judging?

The traits I mentioned are not judging points, but rather regarding the nature of the plant for collectors and hybridizers.
But.... if it comes onto a judging table, the scraggly growth may make an unruly presentation if growths are spread in different lying down position, and the flowers may not face up well.

 

[Guldal]

But.... if it comes onto a judging table, the scraggly growth may make an unruly presentation if growths are spread in different lying down position, and the flowers may not face up well.

And, I guess, there is no guarantee, that among the judges you happen on a Catt. speciesist like Leslie, who has the appropriate knowledge of the plants natural growth wise, and can take that into consideration in passing judgement.
The judges in my local orchid society are good with a lot of species close to their hearts, but can't really be said to excell, when it comes to Paph. species. This sometimes leads to some strange results in the judging of rare species, especially if their appearance is of the more unobtrusive, non-flashy kind. I several times f.ex. brought a splendid, though sadly now departed P. sugiyamanum to gatherings with judging. And the poor plant always went home, quite unfair, with lousy points for its flower.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

And, I guess, there is no guarantee, that among the judges you happen on a Catt. speciesist like Leslie, who has the appropriate knowledge of the plants natural growth wise, and can take that into consideration in passing judgement.
The judges in my local orchid society are good with a lot of species close to their hearts, but can't really be said to excell, when it comes to Paph. species. This sometimes leads to some strange results in the judging of rare species, especially if their appearance is of the more unobtrusive, non-flashy kind. I several times f.ex. brought a splendid, though sadly now departed P. sugiyamanum to gatherings with judging. And the poor plant always went home, quite unfair, with lousy points for its flower.

Yes unfortunately not all judges know everything for the simple reason that there are over 30,000 species and over 150,000 hybrids. Though my knowledge is extensive on Cattleyas, Phalaenopsis, Dendrobiums, Vandas and Paphiopedilums, I struggle with Oncidium Alliance particularly the intergenerics and Maxillaria Alliance (because I don't grow them). Luckily we have at hand the OrchidPro program to compare old awards, OrchidWiz program to analyze genetics and Dr. Google to tell us about general info lol.

A good team will compose of experts in the differing genera so that they can give their experience and fair 'trial' to the plant.