This is true. However, sometimes one likes to have a name just for the
sake of completeness....guess it depends on how Type A you are. What
did the original label say? I know it was illegible, but what could you
definitely make out? Along with a photo, it might be possible to still
get an ID. However, based on just a picture and a truly incorrect
label, it's impossible to ID a phal.

Cheers,
Xi

da wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:10:33 GMT, Xi Wang
wrote:


Hi,

http://www.dahliafarm.com/orchids/p9871.htm
http://takahashiorchids.com/r0300109.jpg
http://www.danielsorchids.com/Phalae...laenopsis.html

Check out these pics of 'BL'. I remember your previous posts, but I
have to say that by your description, your plant does not sound like the
typical 'BL'. It may contain the mutated Golden Peoker lineage, but a
true BL should be full of plum blotches, not just a few near the centre
of the flower. Any chance you can send me a picture? Don't post on the
list, some people really hate that.

Cheers,
Xi Wang



Hi Xi Wang,

Thanks for those links. I'm really, really convinced now that my plant
was mislabelled. It looks nothing like the plants in your links or in
the photo that Bob so graciously e-mailed me.

I've got prints, but I haven't been able to get time on a scanner yet.
Part of me thinks it's really silly to even bother wasting my time
trying to figure out what this phal is. As I told Bob, I'm not an
expert, I have no plans to show it, I'm not going to clone it, and
it's a pretty unremarkable, mostly white orchid. I'm just happy that
it's alive and well and blooming. It's just nice to look at, and
that's all that really counts.
--Vic
(replace .canada with .ca for a working e-mail address)