New candidate for this month is Stanhopea Goodwood (Stanhopea impressa (syn. Stanhopea gibbosa) x Stanhopea pseudoradiosa). This cross has been originated and registered by Inge Poot in 2016.

Although this cross has been registered by RHS as Stanhopea impressa by Stanhopea pseudoradiosa, Stanhopea impressa is a synonym of Stanhopea gibbosa, Rchb.f. 1869, which is an accepted species by POWO, Kew. The native range of this species is S. Colombia to Ecuador.

Stanhopea pseudoradiosa Jenny & R. Gonzalez 1997 is accepted species by POWO, Kew and found in the SW Mexico. 

Previous Awards:

There is no AOS awards for this cross. 

There are 6 AOS awards for Stanhopea gibbosa. The latest award - clone 'Kathleen' received 86 pts AM/AOS and 82 pts CCM/AOS in 2015. There are also 3 AOS awards for Stanhopea impressa which is synonym of Stanhopea gibbosa.

There is no AOS awards for Stanhopea pseudoradiosa. 

Description:

The candidate plant has 5 flowers on one pendant inflorescence plus second immature inflorescence. Plant has 9 leaves, 16 pseudo bulbs, 61 cm wide and 68 cm tall. Grown in wooden basket with rockwool bark.

Flower Measurements:

NS H - 9.0 cm;                   NS V -8.2 cm;

Dorsal Sep. W - 2.9 cm;    Dorsal Sep. L - 6.0 cm;

Petal W - 2.3 cm;               Petals L - 4.6 cm;

Lat/Sepal W - 3.9 cm;       Lat/Sepal L - 6.5 cm;

Lip/Pouch W - 2.8 cm;     Lip/Pouch L - 6.0 cm.

Judges' Comments

Kristen Mason (Accredited Judge, Cincinnati Judging Center)

I love the display on the inflorescence, more open and less crowded than gibbosa. The yellow color with deep central yellow and fine spotting is elegant and pleasing, a nice combination of the parents. There is less curling of sepals compared to the gibbosa parent. The lip carriage takes after the pseudoradiosa parent and is held close to the column. Size as is would be expected with this parentage. Floriferousness appears to favor the more floriferous parent, but is hard to know for sure given the lack of specific data for the pseudoradiosa. Overall, nice interesting flowers with an outcome that is close to the desired aspects from the parent species. I pointed this at 77 (HCC).

Jan Takamiya (Associate Judge, Hawaii Judging Center)

Stanhopea Goodwood

(Stan. gibbosa x Stan. pseudoradiosa)

First time judging a Stanhopea … they are beautifully exotic but also a bit unnerving for me to judge, very difficult to photograph and scary to describe. The pendant downward facing flower, specialized lip parts and recurved nature of the large sepals and narrow petals make it difficult to apply standard rules of judging but here goes…

The flower count of 5 on this candidate meets the higher count range for both parents. The natural spread of 9 cm is better than the geometric mean of 8, even when calculating with the higher award averages for gibbosa. I could not find flower part measurements for pseudoradiosa. Our candidate has smaller parts as compared to the nearly spotless gibbosa ‘Kathleen’ award, but in my opinion smaller size is to be expected, given the pseudoradiosa natural spread.

The bright orange-yellow sepal and petal basal markings and hypochile color are attractive and, in my opinion, a positive trait. A few photos of both parents in IOSPE and Orchid Wiz show similar colors, with and without spots.

The reflexed flower parts of this candidate do not appear ideal for judging at this time, yet I understand how very narrow the window is to judge a Stanhopea bloom. I want to be lenient here, especially considering photos of past gibbosa awards that show reflexed parts. I am not certain that our candidate displays significant improvement over both parents, so I hesitate to nominate for merit at this time. I look forward to learning from other judges input and considerations for judging this candidate and Stanhopea in general.

I would not consider a culture award at this time, especially since the second Goodwood inflorescence is just developing. Based on the flower size and high count per inflorescence, I wonder if this primary hybrid may have vigor and potential for a more floriferous bloom as it matures?

I’m curious to know what type of fragrance Goodwood has? Although not a judgeable trait, a pleasant fragrance is always a plus for me.

I photographed this Stan. tigrina var. nigroviolacea bloom over a period of several hours using selfie mode.

It held an expanded morning bloom at 11 am for only a couple hours before recurving. I doubt this tigrina would make it to an evening judging event.

Attachment: Stan. tigrina var. nigroviolacea

Al Messina (Accredited Judge, Northeast Judging Center)

This primary hybrid is nicely grown and bloomed. While these flowers are generally standard for the genus, they benefit from quite opportune photography, ie, at the early part of the relatively brief flower life when the flowers are just opening and the petals have yet to severely recurve (and reflex). The sole frontal (or pollinator) view we have of this flower is the sixth in the static series which nicely displays a full, flat flower (as ephemeral as the moment might have been).

All other views show only side or top views (as do almost every award photo of the genus in OP). The grower gets to see this fleeting moment but judges generally don't at the judging table, unless the plant is presented close to the time of flower opening.

Not all Stanhopea hybrids suffer the curse of petal recurvature (See tricornis -- a very primitive, interesting flower whose hybrids' petals might not recurve).

As for this plant, while not compelling, as presented it might qualify for a marginal HCC.

Tom Mirenda (Accredited Judge, Hawaii Judging Center)

A nice example of a Stanhopea hybrid, a line of breeding suddenly getting much more attention from innovative breeders.

I believe we will see many wonderful hybrids over the years to come. I would hope for hybrid breeding that would improve some of the faults of Stanhopeas, such as longevity of flower, recurving, form issues, flower count, huge horsey size…etc. Combining them with other sturdier or more floriferous genera such as Acineta and Lueddemania is addressing some of this. However, hybrids with other Stanhopeas probably won’t be…. In order to judge the merits of this hybrid, I would want a lot more information. Such as improvement in the areas mentioned above. And I don’t think I can glean much of that from what is here.

The flowers are lovely, and I’m sure wonderfully fragrant…it is also always a plus to see freshly opened flowers like these…before they deliquesce even slightly. ..but are they any more attractive or fragrant than the species used? It may possible they have improved size, longevity and flower count, but I think the plant is still too young to show its true potential improvement at this juncture. I will say, that even though the flowers are quite fresh and turgid, they are already starting to recurve…. which is not the best sign of improvement in this kind of quality. This line of breeding certainly has some wonderful possibilities. But I’m not sure they are exemplified in this hybrid.

Because it is a nice blooming, presented in excellent condition, I could justify awarding it to get it on the record, but it would probably garner a low to mid HCC…. If I had more information about its lasting qualities, and could see other examples of the cross for comparison, I could be persuaded to go a bit higher. I would suggest bringing it back when more mature, with larger bulbs and a better idea of what improvements have been achieved by the cross in general.

Tom Mirenda

David Edgley (Accredited Judge, Western Canada Judging Center)

Stanhopea Goodwood (impressa x pseudoradiosa)

Stan. Goodwood looks like a well-grown and nicely-flowered plant.  It probably smells wonderful.  I kept looking at it and the parent species looking for a reason to award it but didn’t find one.  The hypochile is a wonderful orange but the rest of the flower lacks color or spotting of the impressa / gibbosa parent.  The award record shows the difficulty of photographing such an oddly-shaped flower.  A few more photos from different angles would be nice.  I would not score this plant.

David Edgley

Deb Bodei (Associate Judge, Northeast Judging Center)
Stanhopea Goodwood (Stanhopea impressa (syn. Stanhopea gibbosa) x Stanhopea pseudoradiosa)

Nicely grown, clean plant with attractive leaves adding to the overall pleasing presentation. It has one inflorescence with an expected flower count in between the two parents which has us look at a possible flower award, rather than culture.

Overall flowers are in pristine condition with petals held in a flattering stance and not yet 'winged back'. It looks to be the optimal time to judge these flowers. The size of the flowers as well as the segments are smaller than the awarded gibbons parent as expected, and in between the average size of both parents. Substance, texture (from what we can see) and color are all good. The contrast of the lip hypochile against the lighter color of the other segments is very pleasing. The light spotting is attractive.

What I like most about this flower is the form and how it looks to be balanced by the less deep saccate hypochile brought by the psuedoradiosa. It gives the flower a shorter, more compact look which makes the overall flower appear fuller which I think is very pleasing. I like the stance of horns as they curve gracefully around the lip. I find this flower to have an overall graceful, ethereal look.

I would nominate this plant for a flower award with the expectation it would reach an AM.

Thanks,

Deb

Elena Skoropad (Associate Judge, Northeast Judging Center)

Very interesting cross and perfect candidate for virtual judging. Stanhopea flowers don’t last long, usually 2-3 days in perfect condition. 

One of the parents gibbosa has 6 awards since 1976. That tell us we don’t see Stanhopea often on judging possibly because of timing (short living flowers). Also, this type of Stanhopea has flower form issue. The other parent pseudoradiosa has no awards. I looked at Internet pictures - flowers have nice coloration but flower form is not that great. 

Our candidate plant is in the range of mid-high HCC judging by size, form, color and other characteristics. The size in on a smaller side, awarded plant are 10-15% larger. Stan. Goodwood has very pleasant color and lovely spots, relatively good form and good flower arrangement, very nice color contract between petal and lip, all 5 flowers are fully open and in its prime. I would nominate this plant for flower quality award and will score in HCC 77 - 78 point range.

Kudos to the grower!

Thank you,

Elena Skoropad

Inge Poot (Emeritus Judge, Toronto Judging Center, Originator of Stanhopea Goodwood)

Making the cross was a quick decision, made when I realized that our flowering Stan. pseudoradiosa had flowers that had lasted for 11 days in quite respectable condition - I don't know if all pseudoradiosas do that, but in any case I wanted to get those long lasting genes into the hybrid gene pool. Since a rather nice 5-flowered Stan. impressa was in bloom I took the two sets of pollinia from the pseudoradiosa and used one set to self the plant and the other to make a cross with impressa. The selfing did not take and shortly after the pseudoradiosa parent was one of the victims of a squirrel raid in our greenhouse where the cute beasts ate the bulbs of quite a few of our Stanhopeas. We eventually caught 5 squirrels and 3 chipmunks in a live trap and transported them away to a regional forest preserve. But most of the chewed plants did not survive.

The seedlings eventually started flowering and we found at least 50% had flowers that lasted 6 days if kept wet and humid.

Some Goodwoods flip their sepals back after opening, but others remain almost flat.

We have had 2-5 flowers per inflorescence and I therefore feel that 5 in the hybrid is very good since the arithmetic mean is a bit over 3.

The plants tend to bloom on very young plants and I feel sure that once mature the 5-flowered clones will make splendid specimen plants.

Plants bloom any time of the year, unlike their parents who bloomed just once a year.

Stan. gibbosa as described by Jenny can be more colourful, but impressa again as descibed by Jenny has colouring very similar to that of pseudoradiosa. So the only difference we have observed is in the intensity of orange in the hypochile and slight differences in the number of spots.

I would like to add that I find it very hard to agree with the RHS that impressa with a hypochile that is somewhat rectangular in side-view is the same as gibbosa which has a sack-like triangular in side-view hypochile, but maybe they merge into one another in the wild.

The scent of the hybrid is not very strong, a plus for some people.

The range of measurements for the floral parts of the parent species of Goodwood can be found in "Stanhopea" by the late Dr. Rudolph Jenny. 

Exhibitor - Deb Boersma, Ontario, Canada (Associate Judges, Great Lakes Judging Center)

Virtual Award Description

Five full flowers nicely spaced on one pendant inflorescent with additional immature inflorescent; flowers soft creamy yellow; sepals and petals sparsely spotted raspberry, bright yellow basally; lip spotted raspberry, hypochile rich bright orange; column spotted raspberry, centrally light chartreuse; substance medium, texture waxy; fragrant.

Grower's Advice

Stanhopea Goodwood is grown in a wooden slotted basket. It receives bright filtered light in the summer under a mulberry tree, in the winter it is placed at the top of the greenhouse. It is watered quite frequently, two to three times per week in the summer and about once per week in the winter. Fertilized almost every watering with quarter strength MSU fertilizer and once a month with Kelp Max. Humidity in the greenhouse is 70-75% in the winter and summer outdoors is whatever Mother Nature provides,  Southern Ontario can have relatively high humidity during the summer months.

Winter temperatures range between 65-75 during the day and around 60 at night, in summer outdoors temperatures can go as high as 90 during the day and 65-75 at night.

Flowers stayed open for 5 days and it was sweetly fragrant somewhat like vanilla.