New candidate for this month is Cattleya amethystoglossa.

Cattleya amethystoglossa, Lindl. & Rchb.f. ex R. Warner 1862 is accepted species by POWO (Kew). The native range of this species is Brazil (Pernambuco to Espirito Santo). It is a pseudobulbous epiphyte and grows primarily in the seasonally dry tropical biome.

There are several color forms of this species. Kew only recognizes all as Cattleya amethystoglossa.

Previous Awards:

There are 91 AOS awards for Cattleya amethystoglossa. The latest award granted in Chicago in February 8, 2025.

Description:

There are 11 flowers on one upright inflorescence 28-cm tall. Plant is 66-cm wide by 55-cm high. Plant growing in bark mix in 22-cm terracotta pot. 

Flower Measurements:

NS H - 9.2 cm;                   NS V -10.0 cm;

Dorsal Sep. W - 2.2 cm;    Dorsal Sep. L - 5.2 cm;

Petal W - 3.4 cm;               Petals L - 4.6 cm;

Lat/Sepal W - 2.6 cm;       Lat/Sepal L - 4.0 cm;

Lip/Pouch W - 2.6 cm;     Lip/Pouch L - 4.0 cm.

Judges' Comments

Al Messina (Accredited Judge, Northeast Judging Center)

This plant appears to be young, possibly a second bloom. Unfortunately, the defects in the petals are likely genetic and quite undesirable: very large central petal ribs and apical irregular deformities, almost incisure-like. Suboptimal flower count is unhelpful.

This is not an awardable bloom in my opinion. I'm not sure the next bloom cycle will be an improvement but hope springs eternal.

Kris Mason (Accredited Judge, Cincinnati Judging Center)

Beautiful vibrant color with clear defined spots and beautiful lip held above foliage.  Flower count per inflorescence is low, size is average. Form is suboptimal.  I'd happily take this clone home and enjoy it, but would not award it.  

Roy Tokunaga (Emeritus Judge, Hawaii Judging Center)

In the 1990s, I was able to buy C. amethystoglossa ‘Orchidglade’ 4n.  Jones and Scully had it for sale.  $1500.00. It was a tetraploid that came out of a large cloning run of the original 2n. At about the same time, I obtained a C. amethystoglossa ‘El Camino’ 4n from Rod McLennan Acres of Orchids.  I crossed the two tetraploids in the mid 1990s.  Have since make several F2 and F3 crosses.  

Both ‘Orchidglade’ 2n and ‘El Camino’ 2n received AM/AOS awards.  Hopefully, the dimensions are available for the 2n plants.  Natural spread may be the same.  Wider segments.  Heavy substance reflect the tetraploid traits.  Also, fewer flowers.   Many of the newer awards are the progeny of ‘Orchidglade’ 4n x ‘El Camino’ 4n.  On a scan of the google photos, most of the the photos are of 4n individuals.

Many hybridizers spend decades improving their favorite species but get little credit for the accomplishment.  

After looking at the photos on google.  You can see the difference between the 2n and 4n.  As to where they originated....... who knows.  I remember seeing over 100 4n 'Orchidglade' for sale at J&S.  $1500 each.    Discussion can include the problem that 2n plants are now, not awardable, with the new standards set by the 4n plants.  For conservation of rare endangered species in their native habitat, raising seed grown, superior plants, is a good way to protect the remaining plants.

If you have any other questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Roy Tokunaga

Jay Balchan (Student Judge, Alamo Judging Center)

What a showstopping head of flowers!  This looks like a plant that could be in Willie Wonka’s garden!  Anyone passing by this plant would immediately be drawn to it and might try to eat it! 

The arrangement is very nice and while dense, it does not seem like the flowers are negatively pinched or affected. The overall color is beautiful and the spots are clear and very pleasing. 

From a judging point of view, the bar is quite high on getting these awarded.  Current awards have quite round flowers with overlapping segments and flower counts in the mid to upper teens per inflorescence.  The overall size of this flower is in line with current awards, but the flower count is a bit low and the form, especially the dorsal, does not quite stand up to awarded clones. 

Clearly this growth is significantly larger than the prior growths. Characteristics like flower count should improve as the plant gains more growths. I would encourage the owner to bring the plan in for judging when the flower count is 15 or more.

Paul Wetter (Senior Judge, West Palm Beach Judging Center)

Thanks for submitting this Cattleya amethystoglossa for comments.  

There have been so many awards for this amazing species that I think we need a high standard that this specimen does not meet in form color or presentation. So I would pass on judging a score.  The color is good, but pattern could be better. The form can be much better and presented with less crowding.  I hope this is helpful and would be interested to learn if there is something I missed, by reading comments from other judges.

Thank you

Paul Wetter

Steve González-Costa (Accredited Judge, Chicago Judging Center)

Very nice flowers with adequate quantity on the inflorescence as we have awarded 4 of these in the last 5 years in our Chicago Judging Center and the end result looking at all recent awards with there has been a nice evolution and improvement in recent years.  My reason for stating that in that manner is that the competition is fierce for this species.  Although size is slightly larger, adding half a cm horizontally for NS and a full cm NSV, I focus on the overall of the presentation, and the individual flowers for the subject plant.  Although the presentation is a bit crowded, it does seem to have a more medium pink color closer to H&R Supreme awarded in 2003.  With the darker color, the fuchsia amethyst-colored speckles are well defined, but, unfortunately less of a contrast.  Unfortunately, the segments seem so hard and reflex backwards – possibly due to the 4n ploidy.  Petals are very forward which would have made for a bigger flower if flatter.  The petals are not as round and seem a bit inconsistent, especially when you compare the lobes on the lip and how they cover or not around the column.  Segment widths are 7mm to a cm narrower compared to previous awards.  Around a dozen flowers per inflorescence is not bad although many have 15+ now.  Nice flower but I would pass at this flowering.

Mary Cash (Associate Judge, Alamo Judging Center)

The subject is a compact orchid that is well presented and well grown. The flowers are well formed with even positioning within a clustering spiral staircase at the top of the inflorescence.   Each of the flowers are facing outwardly with adequate spacing. The flowers are quite impressive. The leaves appear to be healthy and well formed.

At the judging table, I would recognize the subject orchid with an award

of an AM (80-82).

Mary Cash (Associate Judge, Alamo Judging Center)

Deb Jenson (Student Judge, Chicago Judging Center)

The grower did a nice job blooming this beautiful amethystoglossa, which is not an easy cattleya to flower. The color is spectacular with the consistent pink overall and the magenta spots, I also like the white column, which offsets the pink. The form is good, with the petals and sepals proportionate. I would like to see fuller segments with rounder petals, and the sepals seem smaller in comparison to the overall flower.

The bar is set high, as there are 91 previous awards with several FCCs. When comparing this specimen to prior awards, I noted that comparable-sized awards did have larger petals, both in width and length and longer sepals which help to round out the flower. The flower count and arrangement seem to be comparable with previous awards.

I would pass on awarding this, but if the team felt strongly, I would likely score as an HCC.

Alejandro Capriles (Accredited Judge/Training Coordinator, SFO Judging System, AOS Judge (retired)).

Cattleya amethystoglossa

Beautiful specimen of this much-loved species, but perhaps slightly below today’s standards. The coloring, pattern, measurements and number of flowers are in check with many awards, but the shape is rather wanting with the petals being rather narrow for today’s standards and the sepals reflexing inwards. I’m enclosing two previous awards to illustrate the point:

I would not award this plant on this flowering.

Alejandro Capriles

Bill Thoms

This clone (in my opinion) doesn't come up to the FCC standards presented by the 4N clones of the last 2 decades.  If it was FCC quality, it could be considered, but it is not.  The size and shape of the sepals and petals are lacking as well as the lack of fullness of the lip.

I have added the essay for your convenience.

Thanks for your efforts,

Bill 

Exhibitor - Inna Kvitnitsky, NJ

My favorite species are all kinds of cattleyas. I learned through experience I must follow these two rules: choose fall/winter/early spring bloomers and maximize the return on New Jersey hot and humid summers. Why the limitation on the blooming season? Because these cattleyas tend to start new growths in spring, and then take advantage of our hot and humid summer days outside, complimented by intense nutrition. I expose my cattleyas to direct sun pretty much all second half of the day; no shielding is necessary when I introduce them to these conditions gradually. As new growths start maturing, I switch from 20-20-20 to 6-30-30, with the latter being a traditional cymbidium bloom booster. However, I find it works quite well on cattleyas and catasetums by fattening the bulbs and producing better flowering results than  when other fertilizers. My plants spend winter on East facing window sills, with no additional lighting, The conditions are dry, but fairly warm (67 at night at 70 during the day). Reduce watering, continue 6-30-30 up to blooming, then no fertilizer until new growths appear, to accommodate rest period. 

Lateral vs. Vertical Awards

c. Bill Thoms 1998-2009

Two attitudes seem to dominate many judges in their approach to evaluating plants with a large (?) number of previous awards.

       One is:  if a plant falls within the established criteria for an award, it should receive one.  This uses the parameters of the many previous awards to decide which award to grant.  This we will call a Lateral award.

       The other is:  it must be better than any existing award to be granted a new one.  This we will call a Vertical award.

       I think that some hybrid of the two is the best course.  If a cross or grex or population or mutation or some other grouping receives ten to fifteen awards (I personally feel 10 is best), then no more HCCs should be given.  The cross has shown its high degree of quality and the bar should be raised accordingly.  It is highly probable that many Ascda. Yip Sum Wah plants could be produced that would fall within the 74.5 to 79.5 range, but would they be of the quality that should be recognized?

       Likewise, if a cross, grex, etc. has received 25 to 30 (I feel 25 is best), then no more AMs should be granted for the above reasons.

       If a plant is exhibited with a characteristic worthy of mention but not of AM or FCC quality, then a JC or CHM (if applicable) can be given for that particular quality.

       If there is no provision for an increase in quality, then standards must always remain the same.  This is true whether one is judging Cattleyas, Sarcanthiniae, Paphiopedilums or any other genus.

       Just as a standard white cattleya or phalaenopsis must be of excellent form to receive a quality award, so should any other cross.  Even if there hasn’t been extensive hybridizing in a particular cross, the fact that it has 10 to 30 awards is ample evidence of its quality.

       Likewise, with species that have more than 15 to 30 awards, it is foolish to continue to promote plants as being of superior quality simply because they fall within the range that was PREVIOUSLY accepted as sufficient.  And after all, isn’t our granting of awards the same as an endorsement of its quality, as defined by the AOS, Inc., considered by many to be the last word in quality orchids?

       Once a cross, grex or grouping has shown itself to be superior, it then has become its own standard.  By virtue of its acknowledged quality, it has raised the requirement for future awards.

       If we don’t “raise the bar” either by a requirement from the Trustees or a voluntary effort on our part to withhold HCCs from entities that have more than 15 awards or AMs from those with 25 or 30, we are awarding mediocrity.  It is ironic that the fact of an entity’s previous quality being high becomes a reason to deny the plant an award, but life is full of irony.

       There are many hybridizers who are using the finest quality clones for breeding, which is as it should be.  Much has been written about genetics to provide today’s hybridizers with much information to avoid many of the mistakes of the past.  Add to that, the doubling up of chromosomes to produce tetraploids or the use of a wide variety of chemicals or preparations to enhance color formation and you can see the potential for profound and interesting directions in breeding.  It behooves us as gatekeepers to allow only the very finest to carry the award, /AOS.

       PS.  Stop being bloody bean counters, but that’s for next time.