Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies. I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think that if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf, new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|