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

I know in my case, with a collection of well over 1000 plants, the issue is
not about marveling over each new leaf or growth, but how frequently you can
take the time to give each plant a thorough inspection.

I still check each plant as I water, and when I see something worth noting,
I make a special return trip more frequently to keep a closer eye on it.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
"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

I know in my case, with a collection of well over 1000 plants, the issue is
not about marveling over each new leaf or growth, but how frequently you can
take the time to give each plant a thorough inspection.

I still check each plant as I water, and when I see something worth noting,
I make a special return trip more frequently to keep a closer eye on it.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info!
..
"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

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
|
|

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
|
|

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
|
|

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
|
|

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
|
|

Hello Joanna!

I bought a flask last month of this cross:

Phal. Penang Girl X Phal. bellina

The seller told me there were about 25 plants in my flask but I found 42!
I`m plannig to keep some of them of course and I will sell the rest for a
HIV/AIDS charity event next year .

Claude

"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
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

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
|
|

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
|
|

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
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
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
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
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
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
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
|
|