We have done genetics of these pinks (caulescens, pabstii
and pfisteri).... pabstii cannot be lumped to caulescens, because they are
indeed different (and in fact caulescens is an autumn flowering species (in the
field in flower in May), while pabstii (and pfisteri) flower late spring (in
Brazil late October and November). Pabstii is closely related to C. pfisteri
(however they are 1500km away without any related species in between). There is
one undescribed species related to pabstii which we detected by doing genetics,
but did not describe yet. 

The other pinks, such as C.
rupestris and tereticaulis are not even part of this group, and belong to the
C. briegeri complex (the vegetative parts of it are completely different of the
caulescens group). In fact groups of rupicolous Cattleyas based on colors are
completely errouneous, the groups have a strong vegetative resemblance rather
than flower color. For this in fact the caulescens-pabstii-pfisteri is related
to yellows and oranges such as cinnabarina, crispata (ex flava) and milleri, and
the plants of them are neary undistiguisable without flower. The other
vegetative group has things such as briegeri, esalqueana, rupestris, etc. and a
subgroup of this second batch includes things such as longipes, ghillany,
fournieri, and the very small ones (such as liliputana).

Coming back to the plant( this was another submission)  it
looks pretty much to me as true pabstii (and if I am not wrong it was flowered
in spring although a bit early right?---- i would expect these plants would
switch flower in the US to late march-early April) The main difference between
pfisteris and pabstiis is that pfisteris have very small flowers, rarely larger
than 2cm diam. whereas pabstiis are more variable and generally larger (up to
3-4cm). There are some large-flowered pfisteris which were described as a
"new species", Hoffmanseggella diamantinensis, however we
investigated their genetics and discovered that they are pfisteris with 15%
introgression of C. sincorana (believe me), which grows together in the same
location. 

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Cássio van den Berg <vcassio@gmail.com>
wrote:

We have done genetics of these pinks (caulescens, pabstii
and pfisteri).... pabstii cannot be lumped to caulescens, because they are
indeed different (and in fact caulescens is an autumn flowering species (in the
field in flower in May), while pabstii (and pfisteri) flower late spring (in
Brazil late October and November). Pabstii is closely related to C. pfisteri
(however they are 1500km away without any related species in between). There is
one undescribed species related to pabstii which we detected by doing genetics,
but did not describe yet. 

The other pinks, such as C. rupestris and tereticaulis are
not even part of this group, and belong to the C. briegeri complex (the
vegetative parts of it are completely different of the caulescens group). In
fact groups of rupicolous Cattleyas based on colors are completely errouneous,
the groups have a strong vegetative resemblance rather than flower color. For
this in fact the caulescens-pabstii-pfisteri is related to yellows and oranges
such as cinnabarina, crispata (ex flava) and milleri, and the plants of them
are neary undistiguisable without flower. The other vegetative group has things
such as briegeri, esalqueana, rupestris, etc. and a subgroup of this second
batch includes things such as longipes, ghillany, fournieri, and the very small
ones (such as liliputana).

Please note the H. xdiamantinensis is a hybrid between C.
pfisteri and C. sincorana, therefore pink --- it is basically a pfisteri (in
the caulescens group of pinks, with larger flowers). 

C. angereri is the (most) robust species of whole sect.
Parviflorae, but some populations of C. luetzelburgii (ex Laelia bahiensis) also
could fit this exemplar... actually I am not sure whether C. luetzelburgii is a
single species, or if people are calling anytning yellow or orange that comes
from Bahia with that name. In some places I find it as a rather normal sized
plant much like C. crispata (ex. L. flava), and in other populations plants are
more rubust and orange, much to the style of this one, and look pretty similar
to C. angereri. 

The difference in geographical distribution is humongous. C.
angereri comes from the town of Diamantina-MG, where it occurs often intermixed
with populations of C. rupestris in the road to Milho Verde for example. 

C. bahiensis comes from the Chapada Diamantina, in Bahia,
which is a completely diferent place (1000km to the north). If you can rely
that the Diamantina District on the label is the town in Minas
Gerais, the only species of this size on the area would be C. angereri. If it
is a Bahian plant from the Chapada Diamantina, it is the robust form of C.
luetzelburgii. 

Please note that for rupicoulous Laelias the documentation
of the determination task of the AOS needs to be improved.... I suggest at
least a dismounted flower spread in a card and photographed with a ruler, so
that we can get a lot more information from it.... 

Despite this, the type of plant I can see in the photo
discards all other groups of yellows in the alliance of C. briegeri (C.
briegeri, C. esalqueana, C. itambana, etc.).