I assume candida and brevisspatha are synonyms (heterotypic); otherwise it would be a problem determining parentage, including multiple varieties.
There is a generic problem in the judging record regarding multifloral lycastes: To determine the strength and vigor of the growth, the pseudobulb, one relies on the size and floriferousness of the growth; viz, how big is the growth (pseudobulb)? and how many flowers does it produce? To evaluate for culture we also need to know how many growths are in the candidate, how many bear flowers, how many do not bear flowers, how many are leaf bearing, how many are deciduous(no leaves) and what the maximum flower count is on the most floriferous bulb as well as the average count on flowering bulbs. Trying to find any or all of this information in the record will cause a considerable degree of exasperation. The descriptions of only one or two of the parent species and the hybrid have any mention of the pseudobulbs, and only the CHM to brevispatha "Betty B" mentions the number of flowers from one pseudobulb ( 14 fls 2 bds). Virtually all the descriptions fail to give number of growths nor flowering growths! So how does one evaluate a similar plant , as, viz. the present candidate? We certainly have no direction or criteria in the judging record: Only total height and width on some plants. No mention that campbellii can produce well in excess of 15 flowers on a single pseudobulb! Awarded flower counts are generally for the entire plant so we have no way of knowing ,ex post facto, what a single pseudobulb has or can produce.
The candidate is charming, nicely presented, grown and flowered cleanly on one of 4 pseudo bulbs and a nascent growth. Eleven flowers do not a CCM make, particularly with these mutiflorals. We know that: Lyc. Dainty 'Windswept's Misty Green' AM/AOS 83 Points, 2018 March 17, produced 30 flowers (including 1 bud) with two pseudobulbs in flower.
Flower size is overall smaller than parents. Petals seem to all recurve (not reflex). I think the only redeeming feature of the plant is the ease of growth and bloom, particularly with campbellii as a parent. I take the wise advice of our predecessors and history: Sergey asked why this cross was not awarded for 15 years post introduction into the hobby? The answer is: It is not better than it's parents. I would not award this plant but that does not preclude other judges from scoring it. I would not score it below seventy five points on principle. Should it be nominated, I would recuse myself from the scoring.
More importantly: To the students and lesser experienced folks, please take care when writing descriptions of mutifloral lycastes to include the description of the growths ,as you would , say, in nobile type dendrobiums where the growth (cane) carries the inflorescences. Number of growths, number flowered, number not flowered, whether flowered growths are leafed or deciduous, etc.
Thanks for allowing me to participate in this exercise.
Al Messina yesterday brought to my attention that lycaste candida and brevispatha are synonyms and lycaste brevispatha is accepted name now!
I believe that in 1990th Dr. Henry Oakeley treated lycaste candida as separate species, probably that’s why on RHS registration you can see candida as one of the parents (same in OrchidPro). Looks like RHS more conservative to keep old names compare to taxonomists.
Anyway, that’s mean if someone would like to look to the parents in OrchidPro, lycaste brevispatha will be correct parent.
Btw, Orchid Species website still has candida as species.
Yes, there is a persistent problem between KEW and RHS, we adhere to KEW for species, but RHS does not adhere to them when it comes to hybrid parentage, which can make things difficult.
I'm afraid I can't see this flower being award worthy. In reviewing the award history the dorsal margins are not smooth. The petals recurve far too much for my liking. The lip, likewise, curls under far too much. Flower count is too low to justify cultural award. Some measurements are slightly above the average for the 5 previous awards but not enough to make me say "Wow! That's a big flower!" So I would pass on this plant. Although it IS quite pretty and I'm guessing fragrant, too.
My first impression of this flower was that the segments were all fairly reflexed apically, but the more that I compared it to the prior awards, the more I preferred this one. Several of the prior awards were much flatter flowers, but honestly I found them too flat, in that they have almost lost the style of a Lycaste.
I find this flower to be the most well-balanced. I like the overall flower form, especially the balance of the petals nicely filling the gap between the full sepals. It seems rounder than the prior awards which look much more triangular, due to the ratio between the sepals and petals. The slight undulate ripple of the dorsal sepal plays nicely with the reflexed petals. The lip is slightly more reflexed than I would like, but I find the tightly ruffled margin adds a bit of charm.
I find the color very clean, the central yellow of the petals, lip and column really stands out and look very rich and saturated, it wonderfully complements the chartreuse sepals.
The size of the flower is good.
The substance and texture appears adequate.
The habit and arrangement is visually pleasing (I am totally disregarding the front flower in the group shot that appears to have a broken lip)all of the flowers have positioned themselves to be seen independently.
The floriferousness is also acceptable.
This is a solid AM flower in my opinion (many of the other prior awarded AM’s I felt were possible scored higher than I would have).
I would score the form at 25, the color 27, and the bottom four characteristics 32, for a total of 84 points.
We don’t have the opportunity to see all that many Lycaste here in Florida, so it was nice to research and compare this one with the prior awards.
Just for fun, and because I always get stuck doing it in my center.
Here is my award description:
Here is my submission for this plant.
Please accept my commentary of the candidate, Lycaste Dainty, based on the following observations:
As a first impression, the candidate certainly presents in a charming and cheery way. To me, this plant resembles a spring bloom of daffodils both in color and form. However, it is not a very large plant (only four small pseudobulbs) and probably has not reached its potential yet.
o flower size is slightly larger on all segments (10-20%) than the other 5 awarded for this grex
o 11 blooms from one pseudobulb is impressive but as a result blooms are somewhat crowded; this also supports this might be a young plant that needs a chance to grow up a bit, since it is the only bulb producing; the newest bulb is also smaller than the preceding bulb, so culture may not be optimal
o overall form is fair with either damage or one bloom with a mutated lip;
o petals and sepals are reflexed only at the apices but very uniformly on all blooms; they still give a pleasing appearance but other awarded plants are flatter overall
o the close-up photo of bloom shows one petal slightly larger than the other and assuming that was the best bloom it may also be the case on others
o overall color is average with no obvious marks or color breaks
o it’s a clean plant
Recommendations for nomination:
I thank the grower for presenting this plant as it certainly brought a smile to my day. However, I do not think the flower which we are looking at for a possible award brings anything different or unique compared to its awarded predecessors in either color or form. The candidate may present differently in a few years as a larger plant, and if so, I would encourage the grower to bring it back then.
I think the hybridizer who registered this cross in 1992 was trying to take a Lyc. campbellii and put some pink into the progeny. Lyc. candida, now known as Lyc. brevispatha has the color but lacks good form, with a lot of asymmetrical reflexiing in petals and sepals. The clone ‘Windswept’s Rosy Hue’ with a low AM of 81 points more or less measures up in my opinion, having decent color. The form is not as good as a good Lyc. campbellii. However, ‘Windswept’s rosy Hue’ is the best of the grex for flower quality as far as I can see.
The candidate has no suffusion of pink or white and its form is not good. It has the form of Lyc. breviscapa (poor) and no color improvement over Lyc. campbellii. I would rather own a good Lyc. campbellii.
In addition, the candidate has all inflorescences emerging from one bulb, so a cultural award is not in order.
Looking at this flower and doing a little research on Orchid Pro and Wiz has raised more questions for me then I have answers for. I realized that I do not know and can not comfortably state what a standard would be in looking at these for judging. Unlike the Lycaste hybrids with Lyc. skinneri, where the flowers are larger and more round, it seems to be more acceptable that the petals are recurved and have irregular edges in these smaller hybrids. That being said I then question, are the petals proportionate to the rest of the flower in our candidate? If looking at the AOS award picture for 'Perseverance' AM 84 points, I'd have to say yes, they are what you might expect. Perhaps the one aspect I've recognized from studying a few of these awarded flowers is that the sepals all seem to take on the same shape whether dorsal or lateral. In our candidate, the dorsal tapers off to appear to be triangular and the lateral more square.
Lovely color, I appreciate that this flower is taking on the color from Lyc. campbellii. I think that the color alone, in comparison to the awarded flowers, is recognizable.
One other side note: There is a hybrid Lyc. Birthday Girl (Lyc. brevispatha x Lyc. campbellii) that is being presented online as synonmous to Lys. Dainty. Knowing that Lyc. brevispatha is acceptable species for Lyc. candida, I guess this is possible. This was also registered by Santa Barbara in 1988. Sorry for the poor picture quality but this is the only picture I found and it was in Wiz.