The real fun will come if/when we are expected to be suspicious of Paphs
that are 'too good to be true'. I think Koopowitz presented a paper to the
JC on that topic at a recent Member's Meeting (Santa Rosa??). The
implication being that a hybrid just might be made with illegal stock. Like
instead of delenatii it actually was made with an illegal vietnamense. Now
how are we gonna "prove" that? Especially in these days of line breeding
(I'm thinking of Terry Root's 12-13 HUGE Paph rothschildianums... the judges
were floored that anything that big could have been grown.) [sigh] Kinda
sucks the fun out of judging.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
I actually do have the words
"legally obtained from Antec" printed onto the tag with the plant name.
My business name and contact info are printed on the opposite side.

I have quite a few Ho Chi Minhs left since I got two flasks, about half a
tray, about 16 plants I guess; some four inch pots that may bloom this
year...they have to be close anyway. I have a few vietnamensis left and
those are not on the website because I am no really sure I want to sell
them before I can see one bloom. People who come here never ask about
legality. This question only comes up when it comes via the internet or
email as a result of seeing them online. I tell people who come here and
who turn out to be Slipper junkies that I have them, however most often
their response is, "Oh, I got a flask of those from Antec."

I agree they are going to start showing up real soon and lots of them will
be plants given away or traded from hobbyists who bought flasks from
Antec. You judging people will have a real job on your hands if you are
seeking to judge only those plants that "conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition."

For the record, such as it is, I have never received these two plants from
any place other than Antec. Now ask me if I can prove that. :-)


"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
I'd just mark "from Antec' on the receipt. Get a stamp. Or maybe mark
it on the label, since that's what will stay with the plant...???

No one is tracking these plant's provenance because exhibitors aren't
showing them in any numbers. YET. But when they do I'm sure there'll be
questions. Forewarned is forearmed, yes?

K Barrett


"Al" wrote in message
...
I could not find any of my 2001 AQ. Thank you.

This statement from the AQ,:
"plants that do not conform to known parameters for legal
acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award"

makes me consider how important it is to my customers that I mark each
of my sales receipts for Paph vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minh with a signed
statement attesting to the fact that the plants named on it came from
Antec . I think that the AOS should consider such a assertion as
"proof" the plants do meet this criteria. I feel that to decline to
judge them on the basis that a plant did "not conform to known
parameters for legal acquisition" would be tantamount to an accusation
by the AOS that at the very least fraud is involved...so what ever they
accept as proof should be applied to all exhibitors of listed plants and
with care.

I feel a receipt lacking that written assertion is also good enough for
the above to plants but I am finally getting tired of typing and don't
feel like trying to explain why.... It has something to do with the
fact that nobody officially tracks the transfer of ownership and
reproduction of plant material except maybe at border crossings. If the
AOS is going to ask for proofs, I think that some plants (Paph
vietnamensis or Ho Chi Minhs) should only require the exhibitor to state
on the exhibit form where they got it, so that it gets into the data
record.

It is interesting to note that AOS judges can not judge Phrag kovachii
in this country yet, but they can travel to Peru and judge them at AOS
sponsored events there.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
Found it.

AQ vol 32, no 4, pg 289. Dec 2001.

At that point in time the new edition of the handbook was being written
and (according to this article) in the forward of the new edition there
was to be written wordage about the concern the AOS has for CITES.

" The last several years have seen growing concern with the situation
regarding orchids acquired in contravention of existing international
agreements. The American Orchid Society makes plain its intent to
respect and abide by these agreements and will not knowingly violate
them. Consequently, plants that do not conform to known parameters for
legal acquisition will not be judged or considered for any AOS award."

The Article goes on to list plants, and says the list will change from
time to time as plants are added and removed from teh list. But at the
time the list was mostly the Vietnamese paphs:

caobangense
coccineum
helenae
herrmannii
hiepii
hilmarii
mirabilie
tranlienianum
vietnamense

The article goes on to say "In order to fully conform to CITES
regulations, the prohibition extends to plants of these species raised
from seed and to any of their hybrids. This constitutes teh Society's
understanding of the legal requirements and prohibitions at this time.
Additional information will be published in teh Awards Quarterly as it
becmes available. Any questions should be referred to the Judging
Committee." This was written by James Rassman.

Again, this was written in December of 2001, and since then Antec has
legal Paph vietnamense and legal Ho Chi Minhs for sale. I suppose
since the update of Antecs Paphs weren't written up in teh AQ they
can't be judged either... JUST KIDDING!

I have to go back to work, now, but I'll look up the forward of teh
Handbook 11th ed to see what they actually wrote. One could always
ask if the forward to a document is actually legislatable... but I'll
leave it for now.

K Barrett
"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
I think that may have been in 'Orchids' I *think* Roddy Gable wrote a
list of illegal paphs. I went back through my AQs, but only 3-4 years
and couldn't find the list or policy, but know they published a list of
illegals.

K Barrett

"Al" wrote in message
...
Somebody just wrote to me to say that there is a discussion of policy
or guidelines in an old AQ someplace regarding this issue; something
that might be summarized thusly: the policy is that species described
since the 1990 ban on the importation of Paphiopedilum species cannot
be judged unless the exhibitor can provide evidence regarding the
legality of the plant in question. (you mean they have something
besides pictures in them?) I will start searching my old AQs
shortly but they only go back to about the year 2000 and they are
spread all over the creation... If anybody can find it and point me
at it, I will stop banging my head on walls at least for a little
while.

There are actually quite a few knowledgeable people who either read
this newsgroup or have contact by email with people who do. There's
a lot of connection below the public chatter and I am getting quite a
few interesting emails on this topic.

"Diana Kulaga" wrote in message
...
And mo
Does anybody really read any of this crap? :-)

Um, yeah! No more head banging, Al, or we'll have to send someone in
with a wench.

Diana