Reimagining Plant Judging

[Epiphyte]

Six years ago at the Los Angeles Fern and Exotic plant show my buddy Norm received a blue ribbon and a plaque for his awesome plant (Tillandsia australis).  Yesterday on eBay orchidmate received $141.99 for his awesome plant (Laelia anceps x Encyclia vitellina 'Blood Orange')...





What would happen if everybody who attended a plant show could use their money to judge the plants?

Here's a recent pic of an orchid (Microcoelia exilis) that I entered into the LA Fern and Exotic plant show a few years back...





It's just a big mess of roots!  I don't remember if it received a ribbon.  Personally, I don't really care about ribbons.  My primary motivation was to introduce people to an awesome plant.

Pretend that you're at the show and you see my orchid.  Do you think it's awesome?  If so, then you could take your judging form out and write down the plant's number and your valuation.  There wouldn't be a minimum valuation.  It could be as small as a penny.

The next plant that you see at the show is my phorobana...





It's a big mess of roots and leaves!  It's a bunch of different epiphytes growing on a Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay fig) in a pot.  You lean in for a closer look and spot a tiny orchid in bloom...






It's a Cleisostoma scolopendrifolium orchid nestled within the canes of a Dendrobium delicatum orchid.  The other two epiphytes in the vicinity are Dischidia cleistantha and Microgramma vacciniifolia.  Finding the tiny orchid is just like finding an Easter Egg.

Do you think the phorobana is awesome?  If so, then you'd write down its number and your valuation.  After you had judged the plants, you'd turn in your form.  The clerk would add up your valuations and you'd donate the money.  Ideally there would be a real-time updated webpage where you could see all the plants sorted by their valuations.

Initially I figured that the society wouldn't take a cut.  I thought that all the money should go to the people who had earned it. But then my friend Scadoxus pointed out that people could just spend ridiculous amounts of money on their own plants in order to win. I hadn't thought of that.  Two heads are better than one!  Personally, I wouldn’t prohibit people from valuating their own plants.  If you bring in 10 plants, then I would want to know how you would divide your money between them. But it’s probably a good idea though for the society to take a cut. Ideally the society should get all the money that you spend on your own plants.  But then you might just give your money to your friends to spend on your plants.

I'm guessing that the most common objection to this idea will be something like... "Why in the world would anybody want to pay people to do something that they are already doing for free???"

The Fern and Exotic plant show is great because it features a wide variety of plants.  But I don't equally like the plants.  I don't think that all the plants in the show are equally exotic or exciting or awesome or rare or fascinating or unusual or interesting or important or impressive or drool-worthy.  Yes, it's very easy for me to simply tell Norm that I think his plant is super cool.  This is true.  What makes it so easy is that I know him.

Let's say that you see this Hydnophytum formicarum in a cactus and succulent show...





It's the first time that you've ever seen an ant-plant in a cactus and succulent show, or any show for that matter.  The name of the exhibitor is next to the plant but you don't know who she is.  If your valuation of her plant is $0.25 cents, are you going to track her down and give her a high-five?  Probably not.  But if you have a valuation form with you, and you would like to see more ant-plants in shows, then you might as well write down your valuation.  It's certainly easy enough to do.  Judging plants with money makes it easier for more people to give and receive more positive feedback.

What about negative feedback?  If I think that somebody's plant is incredibly boring, then I'm probably not going to tell them.  Especially if I don't know them.  It's certainly true that I wouldn't be able to write down a negative valuation on my form.   But if we all had the opportunity to use our money to judge the plants, then everybody would see everybody's valuations of the plants.  This means that we would all clearly see and know the disparity in value between all the plants...

Tillandsia australis: $10.75
Hydnophytum formicarum: $9.97
L. anceps x E. vitellina: $7.24
Microcoelia exilis: $1.32
Ficus phorobana: $0.55
Geranium: $0.15
Ivy: $0.01

Which is more important, the amounts in relative or absolute terms?  I can see that my M. exilis is relatively more valuable than my phorobana so I'd know that people are more interested in the leafless orchid.  In terms of absolute amounts, the $1.32 might be enough to encourage me to bring the leafless orchid the next year.  But because the phorobana is so much heavier, it's doubtful that the $0.55 would be enough to encourage me to bring it again.  In all cases the benefit should be greater than the cost.

Personally, I've only shown my plants once... or twice... several years ago.  I haven't done it since because it was too much work.  Which is the same thing as saying that the reward was too small.

My friend Scadoxus went to a Begonia show this past Saturday.  She said that it was pretty terrible.  She didn't enter any plants into the show because it was too much work (too small a reward).  However, she did see Norm there.  I don't know if he exhibited any plants, but he certainly sold some... including a few to Scadoxus.

Every plant show that I've ever attended has also included a plant sale.  The plants in the show area are judged by a small group of people.  The plants in the sales area are judged by a much larger group of people.  Are more judges better than less judges?

I accept that it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating the importance of phorobanas.  So if I'm the only judge, then my delusion will fully skew the results.  What if another judge is added?  He probably won't also overestimate the importance of phorobanas.  If he correctly estimates their importance then my delusion will only halfway skew the results.  If he underestimates their importance, then his delusion will diminish, or even cancel out, my own.

Therefore, more judges are always better than less judges.  The more judges there are, the less impact that delusions, misperceptions, craziness and biases will have on the results.  Filtering out more fantasy brings us closer to reality.

It's certainly possible though that everybody else underestimates the importance of phorobanas.  But this is hardly an argument for having less judges.  If I'm the only person who correctly estimates the importance of phorobanas, chances are slim that I'll be included in a small group of judges.  However, when everybody can be a judge, then at least my correct estimate will have some influence on the results.  My influence might be vanishingly small but that's still better than nothing.

In all cases more heads are better than less heads.  Voila!  Please use your head to judge the idea of allowing everybody to use their money to judge plants at shows.

[Geoff]

not sure I understand your point... but am also confused as to what a phorobana is.

[Epiphyte]

Geoff, a phorobana is a potted plant that has epiphytes attached to it.

My point about judging is pretty much about supply and demand. In the sales area, the supply of Echeverias is largely determined by the demand for them. But in the show area, the supply of Echeverias is not determined by the demand for them, because the demand is unknown. Revealing the demand would be as simple as given attendees the opportunity to use their money to judge the plants.

Imagine a street with performers. If you like a performance, you can put some money into a hat. You aren't "buying" the performance, but you are certainly expressing your appreciation for it.

Street performers and plant exhibitors both share their talent and creativity with an audience. But, for whatever reason, in a plant show there isn't a tip jar next to each plant. I wouldn't necessarily recommend tip jars. I think it makes more sense for attendees to simply write down their valuations of their favorite plants. Then they can turn in their forms and make their donations. The plants would be ranked by the amount of money that had been earmarked to them. Everyone would be able to see and know the demand and the supply would adjust accordingly.

[Viegener]

I'm not a big fan of plant shows in terms of the awarding of prizes, but it seems to me you want professional judges rather than the public at large to give the awards. The judges are seasoned and presumably have seen far more plants than the average member of the public.

If you mean that the public should leaves tips so that growers can assess popularity, something tells me they already know what's popular: the plants that sell fast for good sums of money, and they're all certainly trying to grow more of those.

[Epiphyte]

Viegener, the two types of judging aren't mutually exclusive. Usually the professional judging takes place before the show is open to the public. Once the show opens to the public, then everybody could have the opportunity to earmark their donations to their favorite plants. How big of a difference would there be in the results? What happens if the professionals like X but the public likes Y? Then I guess it's a matter of deciding who the show is for.

I probably wouldn't have shared this idea if I even vaguely suspected that the public would take a show in a boring direction. It sure would suck if the show area ended up with all the same plants as Armstrong Gardens! But my guess is that most people go to shows because they want to see, and buy, uncommon plants. The thing is, we all have somewhat different definitions of "uncommon"... hence the point of everybody having the opportunity to use their donations to define "uncommon".

Honestly I'd love to see how attendees divide their dollars between Aloes and Agaves in the show area. Would the division be exactly the same as the division in the sales area? I'm guessing that people who buy more Agaves would want to see more of them in the show area. If there was a large demand for them in the show area, then it seems logical that more growers would make the effort to exhibit more of them.

[mickthecactus]

I'm not entirely clear as to your point either but the plants shown were impressive! Thanks.

[Stan]

Huh,I never see shows advertised in the bay area... plant society sales,yes. But nothing there had ribbons. I think that wild looking Orchid would have done much better at an Orchid show. I have never entered a show either.I guess posting on the internet is good enough for me.
I'm not sure if paid judges would be tellingly better. When it comes to competition over exhibition,people into the game simply learn what judges like..and go for that to win.

[Stone Jaguar]

Hi, Epiphyte.

Nice Microcoelia,there! Think you'd get more "awesome" comments on a succulent board if you showed it in flower and explained that it is a good example of one of the rather noteworthy Afro-Malagasy leafless genera.

Same genus, different species in the greenhouse here (but not my plant) a couple months back. For the uninitiated, almost identical general floorplan as M. exilis:

Microcoelia stolzii - CO.jpg (202.83 KiB) Viewed 3532 times

(awesome? ;^)

Interesting train of thought. I agree the current protocols could be improved on. But I am very much on the same page as Vieg with regard to plant judges with informed criteria (and oftentimes obnoxious quirks, biases and personal animus, I know) scoring exhibition plants, not Joe and Joanne Sixpack. I have never had any of my plants judged at a show since my life is quite competitive enough as it is without seeking "competition" in my hobbies, but have many friends who are AOS judges and am surrounded by HCCs, AMs and FCCs in my own orchid collection and have watched the prejudging and formal judging process quite closely at orchid shows in both Miami and SF. Popularity does indeed drive commerce which then drives a positive feedback loop in horticulture and as such "awards" these plants that then generates more plant sales and even greater popularity with the growing public. As an example, just look at the number of AOS, RHS or AJOS awards given to "showy"-flowered orchid genera that dominate the live and cut flower trade such as Cattleya, Cymbidium and Paphiopedilum when compared to far more numerically diverse genera with (arguably) species that have equally stunning flowers such as Masdevallia, Sobralia or Bulboglossum.

Have never seen the word "phorobana" before and don't get the etymology. Is this anglicized Japanese or Mandarin? Asking for a friend.

Ciao,

J

[Epiphyte]

Stone Jaguar, heh. My exilis in the picture is in full flower! Ok, not really. But it's not like there would be a very noticeable difference. If there was an award for least showy flowers, then exilis would certainly be a strong contender. Its flowers are super small. M. stolzii is far showier. Yours is quite nice! Thanks for sharing it.

I received the same stolzii as yours around the same time as my exilis. The stolzii seemed to want more shade and/or more water... or something. I struggled to find the perfect spot for it and it eventually kicked the bucket. So even though it's far showier than exilis, for me exilis is a far better grower. Admittedly my sample size is as small as it gets!

If stolzii and exilis were in a show that I was judging with my money, my own personal experience would certainly influence how I divided my money between them. Even if the stolzii was a spectacular specimen in full bloom, while the exilis was not a specimen and not in bloom, I'd still earmark a lot more money to the exilis. For me it's a much bigger winner than stolzii. No amount of showiness can compensate for a failure to survive.

I should probably mention, for anybody who doesn't already know, that I grow all my plants outdoors year around in Southern California. So I'm constantly judging tropical plants by how well they do without a greenhouse. The American Orchid Society, on the other hand, certainly does not judge, or award, plants based on their ability to thrive outdoors in SoCal or anywhere else. Should it? Well... like I said in a previous post, the two judging systems aren't mutually exclusive. But I'm pretty sure that the judging system that I described in the OP is far superior because it will take into account all the growing experiences of all the people who participate in the judging process. Therefore, the results will be far more influenced by far more relevant/useful information.

The word "phorobana" is from phorophyte + ikebana. "Phorobana" isn't the best word but when you Google it, most of the results are relevant. Every cool concept needs to have a unique ID.

[Stone Jaguar]

"The word "phorobana" is from phorophyte + ikebana. "Phorobana" isn't the best word but when you Google it, most of the results are relevant. Every cool concept needs to have a unique ID."

I agree, Epi, but with all due respect, what an inelegant/clumsy amalgam you folks have chosen for such an interesting floral art form! Although I will admit that it's nowhere near as bad as the orchid people calling mixed plantings on hanging cork tubes, "epiphyte sticks".

I have actuallydone several complex epiphytic dioramas set up in in large unglazed Yixing clay bonsai pots for temporary and permanent display in the past, and started a very exacting one last year that is just beginning to settle in and "age". Think it's a neat and promising concept. Hopefully, someone comes up with a better term than "phorobana" for the ones using young trees as the visual anchor.

[Epiphyte]

Stone Jaguar, "us folks" didn't choose the word "phorobana"... I chose it. Just me! I needed a word that didn't exist, so I wracked my brain and this is the best one that I could create. I sure don't think it's the best word. So I'd definitely be happy if it was replaced with a better word.

What epiphytes are you using in your dioramas? Have any pictures? It's not very common to see multiple epiphytes in the same pot. It's much more common to see multiple succulents in the same pot. Succulent bowls are pretty popular.

From my perspective, a succulent bowl/dish is interesting because of the diversity. But there's only so much diversity that can fit in a horizontal space. Hence the beauty of phorobanas.

It's interesting that you said that the host in a phorobana provides a visual anchor. In some cases the host will enhance the epiphytes. But in other cases the epiphytes will enhance the host. A while back I shared a photo of my phorobana in a bonsai forum. The phorobana was a Crassula Gollum with epiphytes attached to it. One person responded that the epiphytes covered the best part. From my perspective, the epiphytes were the only thing that made the Crassula interesting. If I had seen the same Crassula at a show without any epiphytes, I would wonder why somebody had entered such a common plant in the show.

I suppose that one type of standard is how many people will take pictures of something at a show. I'm guessing that more people would take photos of the Crassula if it had epiphytes attached to it. Which means that they would probably earmark more dollars to it. So in theory, every entry would end up being a phorobana. Every show would have more to see.

[Spination]

I generally find out-of-the-box thinking interesting, and to be applauded. I guess though I too might not be understanding the proposed idea. If I read correctly, the idea has to do with an alternative or supplemental judging whereby folks make a monetary donation for their picks. Maybe I got that completely wrong.

If I were to attend a plant show, I expect there would be an entrance fee. For that fee, I would see excellent examples of nice plants, perhaps rare plants, grown well. And, perhaps access to a plant sale, and just generally be around a lot of other people who appreciate plants. Also, I would probably see ribbons with plants providing informative insight as to what knowledgeable judges deemed exceptional. All that seems quite reasonable to me.

Having paid my entrance fee, I'm wondering what would motivate me and provide incentive to make additional donations as a vote for my picks? I'm wondering how many people would do that and why? And, why would a vote with money, which I expect most would probably not participate, be more meaningful than a vote that did not involve money. If you're advocating a secondary vote such as what they do at car shows, in the form of a "people's choice" award, I think that would be interesting.

[Stone Jaguar]

This is the one I mentioned above that was started at the very end of July last year that is just now starting to mature. Thirteen species including three mosses. Almost all of the plant used are propagates from my personal collection; the rest were gifts from friends for the project. Peak flowering intersection for the orchids and pings is early winter.

Displays the very rare epiphytic, carnivorous butterwort Pinguicula mesophytica and associated epiphyte flora from the high elevation Trifinio cloud forest tri-border region of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Only used plants and mosses - mostly hummingbird-pollinated miniature orchids - that occur in sympatry with the ping in this ecosystem. The build is at the end of a bench on the main walkway through a cool climate greenhouse and gets "touched" by visitors from time to time.

For visual reference, pot dimensions are 24" L x 13" W x 3" H. I have detailed notes and pics of the entire build, but here's the execsum to keep it pithy.

Beginning (July 31, 2016)

523.jpg (167.32 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

525.jpg (194.09 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

Middle (November 17, 2017)

Ping build 7.jpg (165.45 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

End (July 13, 2017)

Ping build 14.jpg (127.57 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

Ping build 15.jpg (149.29 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

Main focus species in full flower earlier than the plants on the display:

Pinguicula mesophytica specimen.jpg (79.65 KiB) Viewed 3520 times

Happy Trails,

J

[Stan]

Beautiful J. I never thought of ping's as epiphytes. I also like very much the Elaphoglossum peltatum. God I miss having a greenhouse. That display would thrive in one..outdoors it would be very unforgiving to say the least. One hot dry day...

[Azuleja]

Oh my! Thanks for sharing that. It's amazing.

[Spination]

That's fantastic work Jay, and very inspiring.

[Viegener]

Yeah, very nice. The grass on the left is a nice touch, makes it look more naturalistic rather than artificial.

[Stone Jaguar]

Thanks very much all. This is still about halfway home, but by the end of the year I think it will be able to show off many spp in flower simultaneously and be better "mossed-in".

Stan, you may be surprised about how tolerant almost all these things are to brief spells of dry atmospheres and high temps. I have found several Pinguicula spp in close association with agaves, furcraea, echeverias and hechtias in southern Mexico and Guatemala. The greenhouse where this display is housed hit 95 F several times in June. I wouldn't care to try the experiment outside here for most of the year, but I am confident many plants on it would do OK IF watered daily. This elaphoglossum is a signature cloud forest fern throughout the Mesoamerican highlands and the NW Andes. This is a large leaf CRican ecotype, but they are abundant and conspicuous in the Trifinio as well.

Vieg, sorry for the phone photo quality that obscures identities and details. The "grass" is a clump of the very beautiful (when in flower!) Laeline orchid, Isochilus major. It has very showy terminal inflorescences with many tubular purple flowers. All of the plants here except a tiny, creeping peperomia, the fern and the mosses, have garnet red, pink or purple flowers. It was a conscious part of the theme.

BTW, the dreadful-looking hybrid Phals in background of first photos were a rescued collection being rehab'd by someone else who happened to have an empty bench in their greenhouse I could use for the photos.

[Viegener]

Very smart design thinking. I can see the Isochilus foliage is not quite grassy, but in the jungle I might have made that mistake too. I think people composing group plantings often stick to the very neat plants, and the result is so manicured it looks unnatural. This has a natural feeling, also because of the mosses & ferns. Growing up in the NE there was no end of mosses & ferns to grow, and they create great variety both in a forest setting and a garden.

[Epiphyte]

Stone Jaguar, really impressive work of epiphytic art! Great documentation as well. It's really neat to see those Pinguicula growing epiphytically. A few years back in the Flickr epiphytes group I started a skimpy thread about growing carnivorous plants epiphytically. I really love Utricularia campbelliana growing on trees (larger version)! It's kinda surprising how relatively little moss is on the trees.

Is that a Barkeria towards top? If so, it strikes me as quite a bit of moss for a Barkeria. I have to be overly conscious/cautious about drainage because it's dangerous to not have enough of it during winter for many of my plants. I'm sure it's far less of an issue in a greenhouse.

Your creation is pretty darn wonderful as it is, but I definitely would have preferred it if the mount had been a live plant. It would have made your dynamic creation even more dynamic... and certainly a lot more challenging. The balance act would be that much more difficult. I'd love to know which host you would have chosen! What comes to mind are the trees they use for living fence posts. They can be grown from pretty substantial cuttings. Although I have no idea how you'd get a log to use!

Ever since I got into phorobana I've been very interested in learning about plants that can be grown from substantial cuttings. So I found this passage to be of particular interest...

In completely tropical climates, where the temperature never falls below 55F., the trees could be placed anywhere in the garden or patio. This assumes that severe winds or very dry desert air are not a factor. In such tropical settings, larger trees could also be used. In temperate climates both the trees and the orchids will require a greenhouse or its equivalent. Anyone with a large greenhouse could plant one or more trees directly in the ground. This can be seen, in a well-done fashion, at The Marie Selby Botanical Garden in Sarasota, Florida. There are several good-sized Crescentia trees covered with orchids in their display house. Most people will probably prefer to maintain semi-dwarf trees in large pots. These might be mounted on dollies for mobility, if desired. It may be necessary from time to time to air layer new trees as the old ones become too root-bound and lanky. Probably all of the trees listed will air layer rather easily. Most will also root easily as cuttings under mist. Some, such as Calliandra, Erythrina, Codiaeum, Acnistus, Tabebuia and Crescentia, will root without mist from large cuttings, even up to fence post size. Many of the trees have showy or fragrant flowers, some have attractive edible fruit and several have unusual foliage colors. Any can be grown from seed if it is available and you have the patience. - John Beckner, Host Trees for Cultivated Orchids

A year or two ago I picked up Acnistus arborescens from Kartuz. Even though it was pretty small, the bark had pretty decent texture. It grew quite well but I think it wanted more water. I ended up giving it to my friend. Hopefully she'll put it in the ground and then we'll eventually be able to see how well it grows from substantial cuttings.

I wonder if you would have chosen a host that I was already familiar with. If not, then I would have learned about a new plant. So that is something that is kinda neat about phorobanas.

[Epiphyte]

"Having paid my entrance fee, I'm wondering what would motivate me and provide incentive to make additional donations as a vote for my picks? I'm wondering how many people would do that and why? And, why would a vote with money, which I expect most would probably not participate, be more meaningful than a vote that did not involve money. If you're advocating a secondary vote such as what they do at car shows, in the form of a "people's choice" award, I think that would be interesting."

I've had no success persuading the Huntington or the Arboretum to attach epiphytes to the trees outside their greenhouses. But I've had plenty of success attaching epiphytes to the trees in my garden. There's a pretty big difference between "my garden" and "not my garden".

Let's think of a plant show as a garden. Whose garden is it anyways? Whose garden should it be? From my perspective, it should be our garden. We should all have the opportunity to help judge what's in it.

The problem with judging by voting is that our garden will end up with too many plants that nobody really cares about. We're at a show and you say, "I LOVE this Pachypodium!" So I'd guess that you'd vote for it. But let's imagine that you'd have the opportunity to earmark your donations to it. If you didn't earmark even a penny to it, then I'd doubt your love...

If a woman told us that she loved flowers, and we saw that she forgot to water them, we would not believe in her "love" for flowers. Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love. - Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving

Some people will love some of the plants in our garden enough to care of them. These plants will soon displace the other plants.

Basically, the people who care the most about the garden should have the greatest influence on it.

[Stone Jaguar]

Epi:

With regard to your ideas on judging plants at open shows with monetary contributions, Tom's observations about one having already paid an often steep entry fee to the good ones, so why should a visitor be expected to pay more for looking at the plants on display is, IMO, spot on. I think what might indeed have more merit from the perspective of organizers, judges and exhibitors is to have a parallel competition judged by the visiting public for "Alternative Best of Show", say by using their ticket stubs to cast votes into numbered bins identifying the participants on the way out. Thus, a C&S or orchid show could have both a professionally-judged BOS and a publicly-voted BOS. As mentioned here earlier, a sort of "People's Choice Award".

Always nice to brainstorm, but given plant club politics I doubt any of this will ever be adopted. The status quo is always so much easier than change.

Barkerias are pretty forgiving when grown on mounts and kept airy. What is very important is choice of moss if you have it on their roots. The epiphytic moss on the cork tube shown is a Hylocomium sp.that is a very good choice for epiphytic orchids since it is has a very open structure and dries out rapidly. Many of the weedy velvet mosses that appear spontaneously in greenhouse culture will choke off smaller plants and create anaerobic conditions in some pots when they cap the surface.

I grow a number of showy-flowered epiphytic bladderworts (another funky name!), including Utricularia campbelliana from the Wei Tepui in Roraima, Brazil. Fabulous and jewel-like things in flower, but this species in particular is so delicate in captivity and so easily lost on a mount it seems very risky to use it outside of small pots in highly-controlled environments. That, and the fact that an established colony that would not cover your thumbnail will easily set you back 100 bucks or more. A far better choice - still not cheap - are any of the very pretty U. quelcchii clones from Venezuela. Plants are decent sized, flowers are very showy and far easier to obtain and grow than U. campbelliana. Large, showy, easy and modestly-priced is U. alpina. I have a flowering, softball-sized colony from the Auyan Tepui, Venezuela that I grew from a small start purchased 18 months back. Certainly robust enough to handle mounting and display if kept wet.

I would not have used any tree for this diorama since it is a highly stylized display that emphasizes the showy-flowered companions to Pinguicula mesophytica, not its host trees (that are mostly huge Lauraceae). Of the list you cited, Huitite (Acnistus arborescens), Matilizguate (Tabebuia rosea), and Jicaros (Crescentia cujete) are probably the best epiphyte hosts in my opinion. All three will grow well in mild parts of SoCal. Dried Huitite branches are used as substitutes for cork mounts by Central American epiphyte growers, but they break down far more rapidly. As garden trees in the tropics, they are very fast-growing from fresh truncheons but unshapely and messy in maturity. This is a TDF species so might survive in Tucson with some die-back during cold winters.

Large columnar cacti make great host trees for the tillandsias that occur with them in nature. I had a massive potted 16'/5 m tall branched Browningia hertilingiana and a similar-sized Rauhocereus riosaniensis and Stenocereus sp. that had their crotches planted with a very good clone of Tillandsia cacticola and the lower stems with T. stellifera and T. edithae. They looked very pretty when both the cactus and the bromes were in flower together up top. Sorry for older picture quality, but they show what I mean. Many adult cereoids carry modest epiphyte and epiphyll loads in nature.

T. cacticola on Browningia.jpg (48.86 KiB) Viewed 3465 times

T. edithae on Stenocereus.jpg (81.15 KiB) Viewed 3465 times

Cheers,

J

[Spination]

Basically, the people who care the most about the garden should have the greatest influence on it.

Or, the people with the most money or most money to spare, and/or greatest desire to win at any cost. Is that a good/fair basis for voting/judging?

OK, so I did understand your proposal well enough, thanks. Really, I don't want to be a naysayer, but I see some flaws.

Regarding one's ability to invest money into an optional voting system, spectators would - like me - most likely not be willing to part with additional cash in order to cast a vote. So, in that system, my opinion would have zero value. Also, I don't think it's fair to say my unwillingness to invest additional cash somehow: "the opportunity to earmark your donations to it. If you didn't earmark even a penny to it, then I'd doubt your love..." casts doubt on my love for plants.
"The problem with judging by voting is that our garden will end up with too many plants that nobody really cares about." How does injecting cash into the equation make a vote more valid? If the cash is a vote, it's still a vote, but you say votes are the problem.
Even if people did participate, a person with $10 to spare for votes, should count 1/10th as much as a person with $100 to spare? If these dollar votes are donations to the exhibitor, what would prevent an exhibitor from casting thousands of dollars as a vote, knowing the money would be recovered anyway? As examples abound, money injected into a system of voting tends to be a hatchery for collusion/corruption.

I like your creativity, but I don't think the system you propose seems feasible, if the intention really is to arrive at the most worthy winners of a show, by some sort of popular vote methodology. Personally, I'm fine with deferring my vote to an expert/judge with likely a wider wealth of knowledge and more years experience in the plant world. Maybe not a perfect system (biases), but perhaps an improvement would be a panel of judges, if that's not a system already employed.

EDITED after original posting somewhat to include additional thoughts

[Azuleja]

I think people's choice awards would be awesome. The general public often doesn't know or care about the politics behind shows, what plants were expensive, which ones are old or which ones were hard to grow. That might open things up a little and even encourage more entrants to participate.

[Stone Jaguar]

I think people's choice awards would be awesome. The general public often doesn't know or care about the politics behind shows, what plants were expensive, which ones are old or which ones were hard to grow. That might open things up a little and even encourage more entrants to participate.

I think you're right. I think it would also give judges a valuable pause for thought if winners are very different critters.