award 20132132 pacific southSo you don't need to hunt this is what Cassio has said about this group in the past- just copoed and pasted three emails here:We have done genetics of these pinks (caulescens, pabstiiand pfisteri).... pabstii cannot be lumped to caulescens, because they areindeed different (and in fact caulescens is an autumn flowering species (in thefield in flower in May), while pabstii (and pfisteri) flower late spring (inBrazil late October and November). Pabstii is closely related to C. pfisteri(however they are 1500km away without any related species in between). There isone 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 theC. briegeri complex (the vegetative parts of it are completely different of thecaulescens group). In fact groups of rupicolous Cattleyas based on colors arecompletely errouneous, the groups have a strong vegetative resemblance ratherthan flower color. For this in fact the caulescens-pabstii-pfisteri is relatedto yellows and oranges such as cinnabarina, crispata (ex flava) and milleri, andthe plants of them are neary undistiguisable without flower. The othervegetative group has things such as briegeri, esalqueana, rupestris, etc. and asubgroup 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)  itlooks pretty much to me as true pabstii (and if I am not wrong it was floweredin spring although a bit early right?---- i would expect these plants wouldswitch flower in the US to late march-early April) The main difference betweenpfisteris and pabstiis is that pfisteris have very small flowers, rarely largerthan 2cm diam. whereas pabstiis are more variable and generally larger (up to3-4cm). There are some large-flowered pfisteris which were described as a"new species", Hoffmanseggella diamantinensis, however weinvestigated their genetics and discovered that they are pfisteris with 15%introgression of C. sincorana (believe me), which grows together in the samelocation. On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Cássio van den Berg wrote:We have done genetics of these pinks (caulescens, pabstiiand pfisteri).... pabstii cannot be lumped to caulescens, because they areindeed different (and in fact caulescens is an autumn flowering species (in thefield in flower in May), while pabstii (and pfisteri) flower late spring (inBrazil late October and November). Pabstii is closely related to C. pfisteri(however they are 1500km away without any related species in between). There isone 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 arenot even part of this group, and belong to the C. briegeri complex (thevegetative parts of it are completely different of the caulescens group). Infact groups of rupicolous Cattleyas based on colors are completely errouneous,the groups have a strong vegetative resemblance rather than flower color. Forthis in fact the caulescens-pabstii-pfisteri is related to yellows and orangessuch as cinnabarina, crispata (ex flava) and milleri, and the plants of themare neary undistiguisable without flower. The other vegetative group has thingssuch as briegeri, esalqueana, rupestris, etc. and a subgroup of this secondbatch includes things such as longipes, ghillany, fournieri, and the very smallones (such as liliputana).Please note the H. xdiamantinensis is a hybrid between C.pfisteri and C. sincorana, therefore pink --- it is basically a pfisteri (inthe 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) alsocould fit this exemplar... actually I am not sure whether C. luetzelburgii is asingle species, or if people are calling anytning yellow or orange that comesfrom Bahia with that name. In some places I find it as a rather normal sizedplant much like C. crispata (ex. L. flava), and in other populations plants aremore rubust and orange, much to the style of this one, and look pretty similarto C. angereri. The difference in geographical distribution is humongous. C.angereri comes from the town of Diamantina-MG, where it occurs often intermixedwith 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 relythat the Diamantina District on the label is the town in MinasGerais, the only species of this size on the area would be C. angereri. If itis a Bahian plant from the Chapada Diamantina, it is the robust form of C.luetzelburgii. Please note that for rupicoulous Laelias the documentationof the determination task of the AOS needs to be improved.... I suggest atleast a dismounted flower spread in a card and photographed with a ruler, sothat we can get a lot more information from it.... Despite this, the type of plant I can see in the photodiscards all other groups of yellows in the alliance of C. briegeri (C.briegeri, C. esalqueana, C. itambana, etc.).Cattleya pfisteri, award 20132132, has been confirmedto be Cattleya  pabstii (Hoffmannseggellapabstii) by SITF (July 2013).