Critical Review of Vanda sanderiana v. immaculata

I present this exposition of Sir Danilo A. Tiu so that all plant lovers, enthusiasts, serious growers, those with horto-botanical degrees, and the general public to weigh and determine in their senses the facts that have been painstakingly studied and pondered upon here. I leave to your sound predicament what must be executed after you have read this critical review. Your comments and suggestions will be of great help and appreciated. May all of us be enlightened.

A Critical Review of the Article Written by Andres S. Golamco Jr.

“Perspective of Vanda sanderiana Rchb.f.”

Danilo A. Tiu

This review was brought about by the incident which occurred in the Midyear Orchid Show sponsored by the Philippine Orchid Society in August 2008. A waling-waling plant in flower was entered for competition for the category of Best V. sanderiana by Mr. Vicente Chin Jr. That plant was pre-screened by the Judging Committee and was accepted to compete in that category. But to the dismay of Mr. Chin, his plant was disqualified during the actual judging by the adjudicators, which included Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. The reason was their skepticism of its purity.

Heartbroken, Mr. Chin sought my opinion to enlighten his plight. I felt obliged to extent my support to him being a friend and a colleague. I started by reviewing the typication of V. sanderiana, among which was the paper “Perspective of V. sanderiana Rchb.f.” by Andres S. Golamco Jr. in Waling-waling Review (2001). What was uncovered in the effort was far disturbing as the discourse goes beyond the winning edge in the orchid competitions. The ground for disqualifying the plant entry of Mr. Chin Jr. becomes multi-academic.

(This review does not challenge the decision of the judges for the Best V. sanderiana during that 2008 Midyear Show. It abides and respects the verdict. For one, the bloom that competed then was no longer available nor would there be any consolation should the decision be reversed.)

The purity of any waling-waling in plant competition, as to whether it is a pure species or hybrid has been a long time unsolved issue for the Philippine Orchid Society. It has been this way since the time I started going to midyear orchid shows held in praise of the waling-waling, way back in the early 1970’s. The supposedly a wholesome celebration has been repeatedly disrupted by controversy, creating discontent and misunderstanding. Yet to this date, nobody in either contesting camp can attest to the purity of any look alike waling-waling with absolute certainty.

The article of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr., on the perspective of Vanda sanderiana Rchb.f. in Waling-waling Review 2001 was a good opportunity to thresh out the issue. But as it turns out, he further aggravated the problem by formalizing the dilemma instead. He failed to substantiate the entire 30 thesis he has advanced. Worst, he has completely contradicted himself within his own work. Such will be revealed during the dissection of his paper.

There is urgency for a resolution by the board of the Philippine Orchid Society over this matter, because the waling-waling appears in the logo of the society and captures the very spirit of Filipino orchids and orchidology. Then should any member of the Philippine Orchid Society enter in the future competitions, a highly-look-alike waling-waling in the category of Best Vanda sanderiana competition, with the parameters as postulated by Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. in his article, then should it be disqualified, the result will be disastrous. The contestant can always cite the published work of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. as the legal basis of what a true species of waling-waling should be. The “pure” species of waling-waling becomes the renegade. This situation will bring disgrace to the integrity of the judges. It will be a recurring pandemonium for the POS.

In doing this detailed appraisal of Mr. Golamco Jr’s work now,

I was horrified to find out that ,

the errors were not many.

They were not few either.

Everything was wrong!

He can choose to justify his claim by using the typified illustration or the textural description. Unfortunately the two accounts are contradicting!

The paper did not give a good perspective for Vanda sanderiana. It is a one sided presentation by the author, since he failed to exhibit the historical photographs and illustration done in the past, for comparison with his executed line drawings. These visual documents are readily available in books and references.

Why am I spending much time and effort reviewing the work of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr.? For one, he is my contemporary in orchid research work. I wish for him to be able to write correctly and properly, because there are only very few of us in this field in the Philippines.

The first paper of Mr. Golamco Jr. was on Phalaenopsis philippinensis which was written some 20 years ago. It was submitted to the U.S. based Orchid Digest for publication. However, according to then the editor Dr. Fowlie, “it was so badly written, that he had to rewrite it completely!” It is with much regret that I have to quote the exact words of Dr. Fowlie about Mr. Golamco Jr.’s writing now.

Mr. Golamco Jr.’s, work has found its way to institutional libraries and botanical institutions. What will happen to the upcoming students in the field? Will they not be misled with wrong information and pseudo-scientific knowledge being passed on as for honest, legitimate and authoritative research findings?

I have called the attention of Mr. Golamco Jr. and that of the Phil. Orchids Society to its flaws. To date, both have not done anything about it. They do not seem to know how to correct their mistake. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to carefully and objectively review the work of Mr. Golamco Jr. Hopefully with this review, the POS, as the lead entity that nurtures knowledge and interest on orchids in this country, may have a solid basis for carrying out corrective action that may be done to undo the damages that Mr. Golamco Jr’s shoddy work in this most important topic has done.

The Review

1. Introduction:

The title of the article is “Perspective on Vanda sanderiana Rchb.f.” In the introductory paragraph, the article discusses the taxonomic acceptance of Vanda sanderiana to the genus Vanda, then to Euanthe and other genera where it was assigned to earlier. Yet in the succeeding text, he was discussing on how to distinguish a true V. sanderiana versus its look alike hybrids. Therefore, the introductory paragraph became irrelevant to the topic. Much more extraneous is when the author cited the other sections of the Vanda. What is the importance of presenting it in this paper? His discussion was already at the species level and neither to the genus nor sectional level. His paper is neither about taxonomy nor on the nomenclature of Vanda sanderiana. It is about the perspective of Vanda sanderiana.

That the relevance of whether the waling-waling should be or should it not be a Vanda or a Euanthe has long been settled. Foreign orchid publications have long ceased writing about it, decades ago. He even cited the Sander’s List for recognizing Euanthe as synonym of Vanda. Likewise in a post related paper, he cited Christenson (1993) for the new Vanda classification, whereby waling-waling was retained in the Vanda. In another post article, he also cited the work of Lim et al (1999) recommending that “Euanthe should revert to Vanda sanderiana”. Therefore, Euanthe should merely be cited in the list of synonyms for the Vanda, without further elaboration.

The author himself accepted that waling-waling is a Vanda. Otherwise he would have titled his article as “The Perspective of Euanthe sanderiana Schltr.” (Vanda sanderiana Rchb.f.). For this reason, the author failed to set up the initial ground for his paper.

On page 11, paragraph 2, line 5, he wrote, “The study is based on the cultivated specimens from various collective groups with the comparative information and details.” Yet in the succeeding text, he advanced the idea that 600 of his thesis plants were forest gathered. As it is being taught in basic taxonomy subject, once any forest plant goes under cultivation, certain morphological changes will occur, such as a leaf with smooth margins may become serrated, crenulated and others. That is why a trained taxonomist would immediately fix the plant or part of it in the preparation of herbarium materials for its proper description. Taxonomic typication of plants which are done on domesticated plant are treated as cultivated variety (cultivar). Such should have been the treatment for the case for V. sanderiana var. immaculata Golamco Jr. because it was based on cultivated plants.

Nonetheless, it was very disappointing that Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr., did not present a single proof that he collected those plants by himself from the wild; his heirloom collection of 300 plants from his father during his youth and much more, his total sample of 1,700 plants. Where were the plants then? Why was there not a single photograph of the plant specimens? Was there any herbarium material collected then? Would it have to take 10 years to see the differences? The author should have practiced coherence in composition, with each thesis able to correlate and be connected to one another, thereby reinforcing his deduction towards a better perspective of the subject, and onto the next level of argument. As is, he presented the facts independent of one another leading to poor discussion and presentation.

Mr. Golamco Jr. produced eight line drawings in his thesis. This alone is highly downsize or water down representation of the 1,700 samples. His line drawings no matter how realistically executed still remain an artist’s interpretation. There can never be a better substitute for a photograph. Is he still not aware that the days of pen and ink are now gone in technical writings? His study is supposed to be a detailed work, where minute differences are important to consider in factual perspective.

He should have produced documentary photographs of his plant and flower specimens for authenticity of his work. This is something which he could have easily done, as he was into photography at that period when he conducted the study. This is evidence by the numerous pictures he has taken by himself and which were printed in different publications, including in the book he has authored in 1991.

Likewise, he should have also produced his raw data or field notes. The absence of documentary pictures and raw data alone has deprived his readers the chance to review his findings. With a population sampling of that size, a statistical test is most wanting, something which he did not make use of. It casts strong doubt over the authenticity of his thesis materials and deductions.

2. Detailed thesis dissection:

The author divided his materials into five groups:
Note: All Theses images can be seen at the end of the article

Thesis 1:

Anti-thesis 1:

1. Where are the photographs, voucher and herbarium materials as proof of acquisition and possession?

2. He did not provide any biometric for his study materials.

3. It is most unbelievable that Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. who was still an infant at that time (1954) could have already taken interest to and the capability to scribe down the year of accession to his thesis materials as narrated. What and where are his proofs then?

4. Is he telling us that all those plants from 1954 to 1969 did not suffer mortality and all have performed equally well with him? That they are all of uniform size? That they are all unique clones and not vegetative division of other clones.

5. The author failed to indicate where he conducted the study. Where were the plants grown and observed?

Synthesis 1:

The author should

1. Provide the necessary documents to authenticate his study and materials.

2. Provide the range of biometrics for his materials and not make it appear that they are all of the same size, maturity and health condition.

3. Produce the voucher and appropriate document to substantiate his thesis materials were real and not of his creative imagination.

4. Produce the plant, herbarium materials or photographs of the plant materials. Least produced the initial draft of the study.

5. Produce thru photographs, documents and witnesses to prove the venue.

6. At the very least should have indicated where these supporting materials may be accessed by another researcher.

Thesis 2:

Anti-thesis 2:

1. Where are the documents to authenticate his study and materials?

2. Where are the biometrics of his study materials?

3. Why did he lump 100 plants of V. sanderiana forma albata into Group II together with 200 plants of the typical species?

4. How could he afford to buy all those plants of V. sanderiana forma albata? Where did he get the funding for those highly expensive plants?

5. V. sanderiana albata, ‘Lila J.’, Constance ‘Lau’ and ‘Pokai’ are all progenies of V. sanderiana ‘Constance’. Therefore, they all share the same genetic make-up of their parent plant. They are poor representatives for the purpose of the study.

6. There is no relevance in stating, “The names included here were only those whom the author has acquired directly or indirectly his specimens under study.”

Synthesis 2:

1. Produce and provide the necessary documents to authenticate his study and materials.

2. He should have provided at least the range of biometrics for his materials and not make it appear that they are all of the same size, maturity and health condition.

3. He should have segregated the 100 plants of which he claimed as V. sanderiana forma albata in Group II, from the 200 specimens of the typical species.

4. He should have used different strains of V. sanderiana forma albata in his studies.

5. Certainly he cannot include names from whom he has not acquired any plant directly or indirectly!

Thesis 3:

Anti-thesis 3:

1. Where are the photographs, voucher and herbarium materials as proof of acquisition and possession?

2. Where are the biometrics for his study materials?

3. Where was the study materials housed during the study period?

4. Contrary to what Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. implied, the first batch of the Puentespina seedling was released for sale only in the early 1980’s and not in late 1974. Growing them to maturity would have taken at least five years. Evaluation would have been made at the earliest by the mid 80’s. By then the plant height could be somewhere between 5-10 inches tall. His thesis plant material has “roots basal to midway 12” high stem”. They were taller than expected. Thus the merit of his study for 10 years is dubious. That all the plants were without any mortality and were of uniform growth and performance is even more astonishing.

5. This grouping is very much jumbled. He himself admitted that “Some of the imported stocks may be true sibling of 100% pure strain of V. sanderiana”. He is therefore implying that the others are hybrids. So how could he go about determining which is which, without pre-empting his findings and conclusion?

6. wrote in line 5 before from the last sentence that, “In this group, a large percentage have spur if not a saccate base at the middle of the sidelobes”. Yet in his table it appeared to be 50 percent. So it cannot be large nor small percentage, because it is equal (50:50) to those without spur.

7. He printed in the last sentence for this group, “Most have vertical upright sidelobes instead of inward curled and, the midlobe is cordate (fig. K)”. Likewise, he failed to distinguish or associate that characteristic to the presence or absence of the spur. Is the upright sidelobes versus the inward curled and the cordate midlobe related to having a spurless flower? These characters are two different things to associate. With this grouping, he has already preempted his findings and conclusion for this study.

Synthesis 3:

1. Produce and provide the photographs, voucher and herbarium materials as proof of acquisition and possession.

2. Produce and show the biometrics of his study materials.

3. Produce and provide evidence of where the plants were housed then.

4. Produce and show proof of rearing the plant materials to maturity.

5. Explain how he went about determining which of his plants were of pure species and which were hybrids.

6. Practice coherence and statistical remarks! The figures and information should be able to support the next level of argument.

7. Produce and provide photographs of the study materials that such characteristics as to having a spur or spurless flower are clearly illustrated.

Thesis 4:

Anti-thesis 4:

1. Where are the photographs, voucher and herbarium materials as proof of acquisition and possession? Who were his colleagues in the collection trip?

2. Where are the biometrics for his studied materials?

3. How come, there was not even a single photograph documenting his activity.

3. 3.1. Of the places where he has collected

3. 3.2. Of him collecting the plant in situ.

3. 3.3 Of any voucher for the specimens he has collected over the places he
listed. As such it cast a strong doubt over their authenticity.

4. Where was the study materials housed during the study period?

5. It is utmost unconvincing that he can collect 300 specimens of waling-waling in the forest during the 1980’s. Even a seasoned commercial orchid species gatherer from the place found it unbelievable!

6. Why was there no citation of the name of his colleague who joined him in the activity as a witness?

7. Where are the proofs of his travel log? He was staying and living in Manila then, not having spent enough time in Mindanao since I have known him. Surely he cannot gather all 300 individuals of the species in the forest in a matter of few days.

Synthesis 4:

1. Produce and provide the necessary documents to authenticate his study materials.

2. Produce and provide the biometric of his studied materials.

3. Produce and provide the necessary documents to authenticate his study during its conduct.

4. Produce and provide evidence of housing and rearing the plant materials used in the study.

5. Produce and proof he was able to collect 300 individual materials from the forest himself. Where are they then?

6. Reveal the name of his colleague who went along with him in collecting the plants from the forest.

7. Produce and provide evidence of his travel log, to show that he left Luzon and went to Mindanao for the purpose of collecting the species.

Thesis 5:

Anti-thesis 5:

1. Where are the photographs, voucher and herbarium materials as proof of acquisition and possession?

2. Where are the biometrics of his study materials?

3. How come, there was not even a single photograph documentation of his activity.

3. 3.1. Of the places he has collected

3. 3.2. Of him collecting the plant in situ.

3. 3.3 Of any voucher for the specimens he has collected over the places he listed.

3. 3.4. Of any witness for the specimens he has collected over the places he listed.
As such it cast a strong doubt for verification.

4. Where the plant specimens were housed then?

5. Again, it is utmost unconvincing that he was able to collect a perfect number of 300 specimens of waling-waling from the forest for this group as with all of his other groupings, during that period. Consider too that there was no mention of mortality from the collected plants.

6. Why was there no time frame of collection for this Group V? Whereas Groups I, II. III and IV which were collected earlier have? Is he telling us that he can remember things in details better in 1954 than the more recent years?

Synthesis 5:

1. Produce and provide the necessary documents to authenticate his acquisition and possession of the study materials.

2. Produce and provide the biometrics of his study materials.

3. Produce and provide photographs and other documents to prove he himself collected the study materials in situ.

4. Produce and prove that he reared and house all his study materials for ten years.

5. Produce evidence to prove that he reared and housed all his study materials for ten years.

6. Indicate the time frame when he collected the 300 specimens for this Group V.

Thesis 6. Sources and localities of the specimens

The regions where the supposedly forest collected plant of V. sanderiana were done by Mr. Andres S.

Golamco Jr. and colleagues.

	Davao del Norte	Davao del Sur	Sultan Kudarat	North Cotabato	South Cotabato	Lanao del Norte	Lanao del Sur	Maguindanao

I
II
III
IV
V

Anti-thesis 6; Sources and localities of specimens

1. The thesis model of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. is muddled and contaminated.

1. 1. His presentation is already railroaded to his objective and conclusion, rather than to
allow conclusion to naturally seek its own level.

1. 2. He lumped together many specimens coming from different localities and of different
origins, without any explanation why.

1. 3. Yet he also segregated specimens coming from common places as exemplified in Group
I and IV for Davao del Sur, North Cotabato and South Cotabato; then Group I and
Group
V with Sultan Kudarat.

2. The groupings I, IV and V of plants (treatments) have overlapping areas of collection, thus from the beginning a congruent result is to be expected. Group I has plant collected from Sultan Kudarat and so is Group V from western portions of Sultan Kudarat.

3. He failed to present, if ever, made any effort to distinguish and tag those specimens as coming from different places and localities.

4. Of the localities he mentioned as having yielded wild V. sanderiana, only Davao del Sur has existing botanical record. Dolera (1978) reported that the localities for the species were restricted from the Lasang, North of Davao, the island of Samal, and exends to Libak, South Cotabato up to the porion of the Zamboanga Peninsula. The rest have to be properly proven and documented.

4. 1. Original record showed that V. sanderiana was discovered in Davao del Sur, where Davao City is now located.

5. Why was there not even a single photograph documenting any of his specimen, plant or flower, singly or en masse? Yet he claimed a total of 1,700 individual plants in his study.

6. V. sanderiana is a very rare orchid to begin with. To amass 300 of them under each grouping seems ridiculously fantastic! Not even the seasoned commercial orchid species gatherer and trader find it possible, especially in this present era. The logarithm of it needs concrete proof.

7. He did not identify the place where he reared the plants and conducted his study.

7. 1. Were all the plants reared and the studied in one place?

7. 2. Did his place of study accommodate all 1700 plants?

7.2.1.1. Based on the length of leaves he provided, the area requirement for a single plant would be no less than 0.258 meter² of growing space.

7.2.1.2. The total area to accommodate all his specimens will be no less than 438.71 m².

7.2.1.3. This barely has any spacing between plants, nor any walking space or aisle to attend to the regimen of caring for them.

7.2.1.4. More so, it makes observing and gathering of data very difficult.

7.2.1.5. It is definitely not an optimum condition to grow the plant to healthy performance without casualties and mortality for ten years.

8. Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr.’s, place of residence in Multinational Village at Paranaque, Metro Manila in Luzon at that time is not big enough to accommodate 1,700 plant of waling-waling he used for the study, considering that he was also growing other orchid species and hybrids. Likewise the saline water would have been detrimental for optimum growth and performance of waling-waling. More so without incurring mortality for ten years!

9. Similarly, his farm nursery in Lipa Batangas, south of his residence cannot house the same thesis material used for his study.

10. I myself have been to both of his orchid growing places and have not seen any waling-waling collection on that magnitude as he claimed to have pooled for his study at any point in time for the 10 years when he conducted the study as he claimed.

Synthesis 6:

1. Mr. Golamco Jr. should have segregated his thesis material more systematically, using the place of origin rather than year of collection, so as to have avoided the overlapping of provinces.

2. He should have devolved the information how many plants were there for each place.

3. He should have proved the authenticity of his botanical expedition with field notes and journal.

4. He should prove the authenticity of his specimen materials with voucher and herbarium materials ad or photographs.

5. He should have presented documentary photographs of his plant thesis materials and raw data as proof of authenticity for his work.

6. He should have exhibits photograph documentation of the place where he reared his materials in the course of the study.

7. He should have provided photographs of each or altogether the plant materials from the place where he reared them.

8. He should have produced photograph document of his plant nursery in Lipa Batangas should he have reared his thesis plant materials there.

9. Bring witness to testify that he conducted his study.

Thesis 7: Table 1. Chronological presentation of the thesis proper.

Cluster	Group I	Group II	Group III	Group IV	Group V

Years collected	1954 – 1969	1970 – 1986	1974 – onwards	80’s	No time frame
Maturity index (age) as of 2001	47 - 32	31 – 15	27 - 1	21 – 12	Uncompounded
Population	300	300	500	300	300

Anti-thesis 7; Years Collected

1. The author claimed his specimen plants were collected from 1954 – 2000, spanning 46 – 11 years apart for each treatment.

1. 1. Yet there was not a single photograph of them for proper documentation was
presented.

1. 2. Likewise, there was no biometric data in detail.

1. 3. There was not even a range of value for size and height was presented.

2. Therefore by his presentation, it seems that all his specimens have been growing uniformly in size and health.

2. 1. Surely there would have been great disparity in size and heights, more than what the
author has claimed citing leaf span of 14” to 20” long.

2. 2. Considering that Group I were keikis or offshoots taken from original plants collected
from 1954 – 1969. While the others were collected much later.

2. 3. There is also the question of duplication of material.

2. 4. Also consider that plants of Group III were acquired from flasks, community pot or
individual plant.

2. 5. It seemed he has grown his specimens in perfection for ten years without any
mortality at all.

3. The author failed to indicate where he conducted the study. Where were the plants grown and observed?

4. According to the author his study was conducted for a period of ten years. By implication, it was initiated sometime in 1991 or earlier, before 2001, the year he published his work.

4. 1. But it is most strange that there was not a single photograph of his thesis proper at
any given year, considering that he was into photography during those years.

4. 2. Even the six pictures incorporated in his paper were not any of his plant treatment.
They were borrowed and produced from other sources.

4. 3. Indeed, figure c on page 12 was captioned as taken from American Orchid Society.
Certainly it was not one of his plants.

5. Since his exodus from Mindanao, the author has spend most of his time in Luzon to merit the conduct of his study, more so to collect the plants by himself, nor in gathering the data for ten years.

6. He failed to present any appropriate documents to prove he conducted the study and did not mention any individual name who witness his work.

7. Who were his colleagues that can testify to his gathering of the specimens?

8. His sampling of wild collected plants, for Group I, IV and V remains to been seen and be authenticated. He claimed those plants for Group I and II were collected by himself and for Group V, with colleagues.

8. 1. Where are the plants?

8. 2. Where are the photographs of the plants?

8. 3. Who are those colleagues that collected with him?

9. Why was there no time frame for Group V, when the other groups have?

Synthesis 7:

1. Produce the necessary photographs, voucher and other necessary documents to authenticate his study.

2. Produce the raw data.

3. The author should have stated right in the beginning where he conducted his study.

4. He should have explicitly stated the date when the study was conducted from beginning to end, rather than let the reader do some arithmetic and deduction.

5. He should have presented evidence of his residence(s) where he conducted his study and gathering of data.

6. He should have cited the people who witnessed his work. That way the authenticity of his work would have left little doubt.

Anti-thesis 8:

1. All six pictures accompanying the write-up were not from his thesis materials. They were plants exhibited and were photograph on other occasion or lifted from other publications.

1.1. Page 10, shows select form of a typically colored type.

1.2. Page 10, right photograph shows the albata type.

1.3. Page 10, bottom photograph shows close-up view of another albata type

1.4. Page 12, Fig. A, photograph shows “suspicious” Vanda sanderiana taken from an
orchid show, not from his actual study.

1.5. Page 12, Fig. B photograph shows a Vanda sanderiana hybrid.

1.6. Page 1, Fig. C photograph taken from American Orchid Society as admitted by the
author.

2. The borrowed pictures cast strong doubt over the authenticity of his study materials. Why should he borrow pictures from other sources?

Synthesis 8:

1. He should have incorporated actual photographs of the site, plants and flower from his own thesis proper and should have not borrowed from anybody or other sources.

Thesis 9: The Chart, dissected

Anti-thesis 9:

1. The chart is a total mess and muddled, as will be reveal in section by section analysis.

2. The figures were highly questionable.

2.1. The result being always in perfect whole number.

2.2. Even the outcomes of the study were always split to perfect proportion, 25%,
50%, 75% or 100% results.

3. Is this study for real or not? Considering that he claimed it was conducted for 10-years, then the figures should have been more variable and in non-rounded digits.

4. The characteristics being compared are non-dichotomous, mismatched, incomplete and vague.

4.1. The author used monopodial leaves for the first row of comparison. Yet he did
not mention similar or opposing trait for the second level.

4.1.1. By that, the second level should have been complimented by sympodial
or otherwise, which is obviously not applicable.

4.2. He used upright in the second level, yet the alternative or opposing trait is
absent in the first level.

4.2.1. Could it be then that the others are not upright?

4.3. That the leaves of the first row are not strap-like?

4.4. Why was there no leaves measurement for the first row?

4.4.1. How can comparison to the first rows be made?

4.5. Again the resultant figures distributed among the five groups are much too
perfect number for a biological outcome!

5. His measurements for the length of the leaves were significantly 29.7% to 21.3% longer than those from taxonomic record.

6. In his first footnote with asterisk, he stated “about 100 are V. sanderiana albata plants”. Why was he not sure of his counting? Of the authenticity of his specimens?

Synthesis 9:

1. He should learn how to make a table and chart to convey his thought properly.

1.1. The table heading No. of Plants studied and GROUPS should be placed in the second
column spread onto the sixth column.

1.2. Likewise, the word “studied” should start in upper case, not lower case.

1.3. Also the word “GROUP” should not be all capitalized. Only the first letter should suffice.

2. Produce the field notes and other necessary documents as proof of having conducted the study with the total treatments as he claimed to have.

3. Produce the necessary documents to authenticate the study.

4. He must learn to put his words in coherence to his work.

5. He should explain how and why his measurements differ from the taxonomic record.

6. Learn how to count properly.

Thesis 10:

Anti-thesis 10:

1. Leaf color is not a plant structure but appearance.

2. It burdens the eyes and mind to describe both rows with the non-distinguishing description as, “leaves medium to dark green”.

3. Does the medium to dark green color include the forma albata?

4. What about the effect of light intensity and fertilization program?

Synthesis 10:

1. Instead of heading the column as “plant structure”, it is more appropriate to replace it with “plant trait”.

2. Since both rows are characterized with “leaves medium to dark green”, he might as well do away with this description.

2.1. Instead he should have confined and narrowed the description as “with and without glaucous overlay on the surface”.

3. V. sanderiana f. albata normally has lighter green color shoot part, as compared to the typical species.

4. He should have mentioned how the plants were cared for and how he has achieved uniform conditions in growing them.

Thesis 11:

Anti-thesis 11:

1. The data show no difference at all between the two rows being compared.

2. Is he telling us that the apex is clasping towards the stem? Or was he referring to the leaf base?

3. On the contrary, the forest species has a v-shaped leaves from leaf base to mid-portion and gradually flattened towards the apex.

3.1. Whereas the hybrid has a v-shaped leaves from the leaf base all the way towards the apex.

Synthesis 11:

1. He might as well do away with this category, since all treatment falls under the first row category.

1.1. Instead he should have just mentioned it in the discussion.

2. He should have constructed his sentence for clarity, i.e., that the leave base is clasping the stem.

2.1. However, both categories are actually with leaf base clasping the stem. It is a characteristic of the Vanda.

3. He should give this trait a second look to notice the difference.

Thesis 12:

Anti-thesis 12:

1. This character differentiation is a vague parameter. What does he mean by this?

1.1. This trait cannot serve the purpose to distinguish a pure species from the hybrid,
because even the hybrids exhibit it.

2. All vandas have no leaf bract!

Synthesis 12:

1. Illustrate the trait for clarity.

2. He should review his botany and learn what a bract is.

Thesis 13:

Anti-thesis 13:

1. All three rows categories are vague, because the actual heights of the plants were not given.

1.1. The first row does not have any clue to the height of the plant

1.2. The second row suggests the stem height at 12” high.

1.3. Yet in the third row, the figure 20” seems to refer to the point or height where the roots are also present.

2. The fact that there were 100 plant each for Group I (pure species) and III (Bangkok hybrids) has roots up to midway of the stem indicate that this parameter cannot be taken as a basis to determine if the plant is a hybrid or not.

3. Likewise, Group II (Hawaiian source) and Group V (forest origin) do not bear roots up to the midway of the stem. Why is this so?

4. Likewise, the restriction for the third row is indistinct, since there is no mention of how tall the plants are.

5. The sentence construction for row two and three are confusing. Is he implying that the figures 12’’ and 20’’ are the height of the stem? Or they are referring to the point where the roots appear?

6. Should those figures refer to the height of the plant, is he telling us that his thesis plant for Group I which were acquired 47 years ago were only two feet tall then! And those acquired much later are also of the same heights as those acquired 47 years ago? Equally this holds in proportion to the other plants acquired later.

7. Is this work for real or not? How could different plants that were acquired at different growth stages and ranging 1 to 47 years old have shared very uniform heights?

Synthesis 13:

1. He should have included the height of each plant treated in the study.

2. The presence/occurrence or absence of roots at any height of the stem is not a good or reliable basis in determining whether a plant is a pure species or not. This is because Group I and Group IV which he claimed as pure species exhibit the presence of roots up to midway of the stem.

3. He should explain why the plants in Group II and Group V do not bear roots up to the midway of the stem.

4. He should have indicated the heights for all his study materials.

5. He should practiced coherence in sentence construction.

6. Plants acquired in 1954 – 1969 cannot be just 24 inches tall after 47 - 31 years later.

7. Certainly plants acquired 47 years ago cannot be of the same heights as those acquired much later.

Thesis 14:

Anti-thesis 14:

1. He should have defined what growth pattern is for clarity.

2. His parameter of using the number of plant in active or dormant stage on month quarterly basis does not show growth pattern, but is a quantitative tabulation.

3. What were his bases for active growth? Were they the root growth, shoot growth or flowering?

4. The results of his observation were stated in figures (quantitative), and yet they were all appraised qualitatively. There were no biometric figures to support them.

5. That (plant/root) is read as plant per root. Is there such a thing for Vanda? I still have to see a Vanda plant that has multiple shoot per root. Or by that does he meant the slash stands for “or” as in plant or root?

6. Is he telling us that Vanda plants are dormant during the flowering months? ‘Growth pattern’ and ‘growth activity’ are two different things.

7. Then how would he explain the “zero” entry for Group II, IV & V in the months of Nov thru December?

Synthesis 14:

1. Aside from using months as a parameter, he should have supported it using biometrics.

2. This aspect will be better presented as a chart or graph rather than in tabulated form.

3. He should have used biometrics to support his judgments.

4. He should learn and follow the standard norms in technical writing for clarity, thereby avoid misinterpretation.

4.1. He probably meant roots per plant. At any rate, he should have provided data on initial
root count and measurement, then the final count for it. None of which was apparent in
his study.

4.2. Or probably he used the shoot or root growth as indication of active growth.

5. He should have clearly define in the text what he meant by “active” and its parameters.

6. Were the specimens for Group II, IV and V in flower for November thru December, since he has “zero” entry for all groups in the months of August, September and October, which is the peak blooming season for both the species and hybrids.

Thesis 15:

Grouping	Number of month in active growth	Number of leaves produced per year	Number of leaves produced per active month	Number of months to produce a leaf

I (heirloom)	9	2 – 4	0.22 – 0.44	4.5 – 2.25
II (Hawaii source)	6	2 – 4	0.33 – 0.66	3 – 1.5
III (Bangkok source)	9	2 - 4	0.22 – 0.44	4.5 – 2.25
		5 - 6	0.55 – 0.66	1.8 – 1.5
		7 - 10	0.77 – 1.11	1.28 – 0.9
IV (forest )	6	2 – 4	0.33 – 0.66	3 – 1.5
V (forest)	6	2 - 4	0.33 – 0.66	3 – 1.5

Anti-thesis 15:

1. The ratio (1:5:4), using the “number of leaves per year produced” (better stated as, “number of leaves produced per year”) of the result for Group III does not conjure with the outcome of the parameter applied for the “growth pattern”, because starting August to October, there were “zero” entries in his table. But for Group III, there were 200 plants that have produced 0.77 – 1.11 leaf per month. This means the plants were active all year round. Likewise it holds true for all the other groups. It cast strong doubt that the whole study was ever conducted with deftness. Everything was carried out with much clumsiness.

2. What the author wanted to convey in this section or even for the whole paper is Bangkok is simply not a reliable source for the species. The problem is so simple, yet he applied a very complex solution to it. It should have been a 1+1= 2. But instead he wanted to impress the reader, thus he went about doing the arithmetic in a complex mathematical equation of = 2. It just ruined his write up or study for the reason as follows:

2.1. This section reveals the inconsistency in the result for the whole study.

2.2. It cast strong doubt whether his data were actual recording or not. Were the data
manipulated or not? Were the data for real or not?

2.3. It is surprisingly unbelievable that all his figures end up in perfect whole number. Such
outcome is not possible in any biological study, because nature will always take its toll.
That is considering that he claimed to conduct the work for ten years.

3. His figures for number of leaves produced per year do not support the height (midway 12” high stem x 2 = 24 inches) for his thesis plant materials and vice-versa as revealed by the succeeding table.

The corresponding heights gained for every year of growth by V. sanderiana*

Year	Inches		Feet
	Minima	Maxima	Minima	Maxima
1	1	2
2	2	4
3	3	6
4	4	8
5	5	10
6	6	12	0.5	1
7	7	14
8	8	16
9	9	18
10	10	20
11	11	22
12	12	24	1	2
13	13	26
14	14	28
15	15	30
16	16	32
17	17	34
18	18	36	1.5	3
19	19	38
20	20	40
21	21	42
22	22	44
23	23	46
24	24	48	2	4
25	25	50

*Assumption based on 2-inch width of leaves as provided in Golamco Jr’s table.

Year	Inches		Feet
	Minima	Maxima	Minima	Maxima
26	26	52
27	27	54
28	28	56
29	29	58
30	30	60	2.5	5
31	31	62
32	32	64
33	33	66
34	34	68
35	35	70
36	36	72	6	6
37	37	74
38	38	76
39	39	78
40	40	80
41	41	82
42	42	84	3.5	7
43	43	86
44	44	88
45	45	90
46	46	92	3.8	7.6
47	47	94
48	48	96	4	8
49	49	98
50	50	100

1. With simple arithmetic of multiplying his printed statement “basal to midway 12” high stem” with the factor of two, gives 24” tall as the height of his thesis plant materials (treatment). Therefore:

1.1. Acquired 46 years ago, should not be any shorter than 46 inches (3.8 feet) tall.

1.2. Acquired 31 years ago, should not be any shorter than 31 inches (2.58 feet) tall.

1.3. Acquired 30 years ago, should not be any shorter than 30 inches (2.5 feet) tall.

1.4. Acquired 26 years ago, should not be any shorter than 26 inches (2.16 feet) tall.

1.5. Acquired 20 years ago, should not be any shorter than 20 inches (1.66 feet) tall.

1.6. Acquired 14 years ago, should not be any shorter than 14 inches (1.16 feet) tall.

1.7. Acquired 11 years ago, should not be any taller than 11 inches (0.92 foot) tall.

2. Likewise, he should not have any specimen which falls below 24 inches tall. Unfortunately, the arithmetic permutation of his given data for any plant acquired after 26 years later fail to cope with his implied height for his thesis material i.e., the plants fall short at the time when their measures were taken, being at 20, 14, 11 inches tall respectively.

Synthesis 15:

1. Produce the field notes or log book as evidence of the actual recording.

2. Simple problem requires simple solution.

3. Spread out the data sheet.

4. Be factual in presenting the thesis measurements.

Thesis 16:

Anti-thesis 16:

1. It is hard to believe that each and every thesis plant materials of Mr. Golamco Jr. have consistently flowered each year for ten years, since the conduct of his study.

2. As in the preceding anti-thesis statement, it is surprisingly unbelievable that there was neither casualty nor mortality in his thesis plant material. It was a 100% good performance and survival rate for all ten years.

3. Again the author went about solving a simple problem with a complex solution. And it seems the main purpose of this article was just to point out that Bangkok is not a reliable source of a pure V. sanderiana plant.

Synthesis 16:

1. Produce the field notes, photographs and other necessary documents to authenticate the work and record.

2. Produce the records of evidence.

3. Simple problem requires only simple solution.

Thesis 17:

Anti-thesis 17:

1. Where are the photographs, voucher or herbarium as evidences?

2. The figures at each category are too perfect numbers to be acceptable!

Synthesis 17:

1. Produce the necessary documents to authenticate the study.

2. Produce the field notes as evidence of actual observation.

Thesis 18:

Anti-thesis 18:

1. Spotting is not considered a color.

2. Suddenly, there is a row for the albino type. Whereas in the previous entry there was none for this type, although he knew there were about 100 plants of them.

3. Color and degree of spotting is not a good basis to certify the purity of the species.

Synthesis 18:

1. He should have segregated the spotting trait to another row.

2. He should have segregated the albino type from the beginning of the chart.

3. V. sanderiana has undergone generation of selective breeding. The overwhelming pink hue and degree of spotting are not a reliable basis to discount its purity.

Thesis 19:

Anti-thesis 19:

1. What is labellum column? The labellum has no column, nor does the column has a labellum!

2. There is no difference between the two rows of categories, even with or without the word “with”. Yet it has different entry.

3. While this can be taken as a clumsy typographical error, it cannot be passed as such because the author has not come out with an erratum and has not exerted any effort to do so to this date. Surely this is a case of irresponsible journalism on technical writing. Mr. Golamco Jr. will not live forever, so as to able to explain to each and every reader that it was just a typographical error.

Synthesis 19:

1. The author should learn the anatomy of orchid plant. He has no authority to create new terminology nor forwards his own definition of term.

2. Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr., is exposed as incompetent both as an author and editor for the official publication of the Phil. Orchid Society.

3. Either the POS comes out with an erratum for this work or they retract its publication and treat it as not validly published. Unless they do not mind to be branded as irresponsible organization and publisher.

4. The POS should not depend on a single person to do the editing work so there will always be check and balance especially if a member of the editing board is also a contributing author.

Thesis 20:

Anti-thesis 20:

1. Too uniform result without variability in trait for each and every group.

2. Why is there not a single picture to show the part in focus and detail?

Synthesis 20:

1. Produce the photographs and field notes to support the observation.

2. There can never be any good substitute for actual picture of the subject. A drawing no matter how realistic is was executed, remains an artist interpretation. It cannot be the real thing.

Thesis 21:

Anti-thesis 21:

1. Smooth versus saccate is not a complementary nor opposing character.

1.1. Smooth is texture.

1.2. Saccate is form or shape.

2. Saccate is not even a cleft.

2.1. Saccate is bag shape.

2.2. Cleft is defined in botany as crack.

2.3. Neither one is a synonym or antonym of the other.

3. This entry for this section is a grave contradiction to figures I, J and K.

3.1. This is the biggest blunder in his career as a writer and editor of the POS magazine.

3.2. Does the author know what he was writing about?

3.3. Does he know what he was doing?

Synthesis 21:

1. The author should learn and review his botanical and taxonomic vocabulary.

2. He should learn to relate his discussion in coherence to his subject.

3. The author should practice responsible journalism in technical writing.

3.1. He must voluntarily correct his mistake in all his publication.

Thesis 22:

Anti-thesis 22:

1. The description he used for this section is wordiness.

2. This section failed to establish and correlate the findings with the other traits investigated.

2.1. He could have reinforced and narrow down all his findings to become integrated.

2.1.1. Would a plant with broader, thicker, less arcuate leaves with spur or without spur is a pure or hybrid in status?

2.1.2. Would a plant with glaucous or non glaucous on the leaf surface; with or without a spur is a pure or hybrid status?

2.1.3. Would a plant with or without a root growth to midway of the stem; with or without the spur is a pure species or a look alike hybrid?

2.1.4. Would a plant that flowers in May-June and Nov-Jan with or without a spur is a pure or a look alike hybrid?

2.1.5. Was it the same for all the other combination of characters that he has investigated?

3. It seems therefore, the author used the other traits included in this study merely as “palabok” to make it appear he did an indebt investigation of the subject.

Synthesis 22:

1. Base of sidelobes is the appropriate term for what he refers to as sidelobes – back midsection.

2. The finding for this section must be correlated to the findings for the other section such as:

2.1. Plant structure

2.2. Leaves color

2.3. Shape

2.4. Texture

2.5. Roots

2.6. Growth pattern

2.7. Leaves produced per year

2.8. Flowering period

2.9. Flower characteristic

2.10. Color

2.11. Labellum column

2.12. Sidelobes shape

2.13. Sidelobes midsection

2.14. Midlobe

2.15. Inflorescence

Thesis 23:

Anti-thesis 23:

1. Figure “e” and “f” are not spatulate shaped. He did not use proper botanical terms appropriately.

2. Where are the actual pictures?

3. Again, he failed to correlate this feature with the color of flower for Group II, as with the other traits presented.

3.1. What if the flower with the lip shapes of Fig. “e” & “f” does not exhibit pink color?

3.1.1. What if the pink hue became highly intensified thru selective breeding of the pure species? Will they be labeled as ‘hybrid’?

4. Fig. I & J are indeed a cordate shaped. But a line drawing remains an artist interpretation.

Synthesis 23:

1. Spatulate means spoon shaped, with a very narrow base, broadening towards the apex.

1.1. Fig e is lunatus (moon-shaped) and Fig. f is reniform (kidney-shaped).

2. Provide pictures instead of line drawings for the reason as stated earlier.

3. He should correlate each trait to all other traits he has presented. This will narrow down the parameter for the status.

4. There is no substitute for a real picture to show what he meant.

Thesis 24:

Anti-thesis 24:

1. In the preceding row, the subheading is “midlobe”. In this next row for the table, he equally subhead it with “midlobe”.

2. How can the author covey his thought properly with a much defective table?

3. His text is full of wordiness (side margin). Is there such a thing as “center margin”?

4. Where are the pictures?

5. Again he failed to correlate this findings with that of the other section. It seems he was describing it totally independent of the other traits.

6. From the historical painting in Sander’s Reichenbachia 1894, Lindenia 1896, paintings by John N. Fitch 1885 and even the picture in Philippine Ornamental Plants, 1960 by Mona Liza Steiner, the midlobe is smooth, not serrated as what Mr. Golamco executed for his line drawing in figures d, e, f, and h.

7. Likewise, the original description of V. sanderiana by Rchb. f. in Garden Chronicle (1882) did not mention that the midlobe is serrated. If it is, then it would be noted.

Synthesis 24:

1. He should review his work to avoid glaring errors.

2. He should learn to construct a proper table.

3. Just use the word “margin”, since the word as use in botany refers to the side.

4. A line drawing remains an artist interpretation no matter how realistically it was executed.

5. He must learn to correlate all the traits he presented to each and everyone, so as to narrow down the criteria for the proper identification of a pure V. sanderiana species.

6. Produce the picture to authenticate the study.

It seems the V. sanderiana specimens used by Mr. Golamco Jr. were cultivated plants as explained
earlier on page 4 of this review or they were all hybrids too.

Thesis 25:

Anti-thesis 25:

1. He should learn to construct a proper table.

2. Cluster versus long and short are neither supplementing nor contradicting traits. These are two different characteristics to compare.

3. Without the field notes, it seems all his findings for Group III was geared towards establishing that Bangkok is not a reliable source for any pure V. sanderiana species.

Synthesis 25:

1. Since all rows were labeled “upright”, he should do away with the word to simplify his presentation.

2. Cluster refers to the arrangement of flowers on the inflorescence. Whereas long or short refer to the length of the inflorescence. A long or short inflorescence can support a cluster or lax flower arrangement.

3. Produce the field notes and pictures.

Thesis 26:

Anti-thesis 26:

1. Where are the photographs of his specimens?

2. His line drawing Fig. D is not a typical representative for his treatment Groups I, II, IV and V, as he claimed it to be. This is because from the table

2.1. Group I has 200 (67%) entries described as having reflexed /narrow petals and sepals.
His line drawing does not show this.

2.2. Group II has 150 (50%) entries described as having reflexed/narrow petals and sepals.
His line drawing does not show this.

2.3. Group III has 250 (50%) entries described as having reflexed/narrow petals and sepals.
It is not 20% as he claimed it to be.

2.4. Group IV has 200 (67%) entries described as having reflexed/narrow petals and sepals.
His line drawing does not show this.

2.5. Group V has 250 (83.34%) entries described as having reflexed/ narrow petals and
sepals. His line drawing does not show this.

3. Indeed, Fig D cannot even represent largely for Group III with 200 entries (50%) having petals, sepals flat/overlapping, since the value is 50-50%.

4. It seems therefore the figure D was a mosaic illustration, where floral segments from different flowers were fused to create the illusionary specimen. Is this not “artistic genetic engineering”.

5. Could it be that the pictures on page 10 may not be pure V. sanderiana because the flower segments are too broad as compared to the pure species? Note that their shape is more similar to flowers in fig. B and fig. C.

6. That he failed to show the real pictures and variations in appearances of his study materials prove that they may not exist at all.

Synthesis 26:

1. He should have executed line drawings of the actual specimens.

2. He should have a series of line drawing at least for each group.

3. There is no better substitute for the real photograph.

Thesis 27:

Anti-thesis 27, Figures E, F and H:

1. His line drawing for Figure E is not 20% typical feature of the V. sanderiana for Group III, as he stated it to be. From his thesis 24, the midlobe for Group III with “serrated along the side margin” was 350 (70%) entries and that “without serration along the margin” was 150 (30%) entries

Anti-thesis 28, Figure F:

1. His line drawing for Figure F is not 20% typical feature of the V. sanderiana for Group III, as he stated it to be. From his thesis 23, the midlobe for Group III with “spatulate shape” was 200 (40%) entries and that with “cordate shape was 300 (60%)” entries.

Anti-thesis 29, Figures G and H:

1. His line drawing for Figure F is not 20% typical feature of the V. sanderiana for Group III, as he stated it to be. From his thesis 22 for Group III, the “sidelobes back midsection” which are “without spur” was 250 (50%) entries. And that with “spur” was 250 (50%) entries.

Synthesis 27 – 29:

1. His table and the illustration should supplement one another. It should not give altered and conflicting information.

Thesis 30:

Anti-thesis 30:

1. These illustrations (Figs. I and J) are the highlights of Mr. Golamco Jr’s study. They are
the only observations that deserve merit. Unfortunately, he used these illustrations to
supplement his table.

He wrote that the flower with a cleft is the plant of the pure species of the
V. sanderiana. While those flower without the cleft is the plant of hybrid
stature!!!!!

2. Mr. Golamco Jr. could easily claim that it was a typographical error, something which is
readily acceptable. The sad thing is after nine years, he still has not come out with an
erratum to correct it. This is glaring case of irresponsibility, both as an author and as
editor of the magazine.

3. Surely Mr. Golamco Jr., will not live forever, so how can he explain to the readers that it
was a typographical error.

4. Due to this entry, the entire thesis he has advanced in this paper have been greatly
jeopardized. His credibility as a writer and as an editor is in complete ruin.

5. How can people respect him, when he does not know how to respect the reader, his
work and himself?

Synthesis 30:

1. He should review his work to avoid glaring errors.

2. He should learn to construct a proper table.

3. He should voluntarily correct his mistake and accept full liability to the blunder.

The Implication

Technical or scientific writing should always be done with responsibility. The objective is to shed light to the quandaries in life. This work of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. has created more problems rather than provide solutions. It instead brought further chaos to the situation.

His main objective must have been to caution the orchidist from sourcing the pure species of V. sanderiana from Bangkok nurseries, on the ground as stated in his article.

Instead of just simply describing the different details and characteristics of hybrid look alike of V. sanderiana that would distinguish them from the forest gathered species, this article became a witch hunt for something else. It sullied the reputation of reputable Davao growers who have bred and improved the waling-waling from the wild stocks.

The danger of this article is that even a genuine natural species of V. sanderiana that does not exactly resemble and conform to the line drawings and other parameters of Mr. Golamco Jr. will be considered a ‘hybrid’ instead of a natural variant. The author has inadvertently ruled out all the natural variations by summarizing all his 1,700 specimens into an extremely tiny group of line drawings, which is considered highly unlikely in the natural world. The only plants then that can be considered as pure V. sanderiana must be clones of his “mosaic” drawings.

After this review, I found this article highly doubtful and so badly written that it cannot be used as a basis for distinguishing the true waling-waling from the hybrid. Therefore, it should not be recommended for use at all by anyone except as an example of how not to write a technical paper.

Mr. Golamco Jr. does not have a steadfast perspective of what a true waling-waling is, as evident by his composition. Even if he admits those errors in his work now, the nine long years of waiting, without him voluntarily correcting them, exposes his untrustworthiness as a judge, a writer and as an editor.

Summary and Conclusion

This work of Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr. is a total failure. He failed to substantiate his perspective about the V. sanderiana. Of the 30 thesis he advanced about the subject, none was substantiated sufficiently. He was telling us that the world is round, which we know is. But in the illustration he used to supplement his discussion, the world is square! His clumsiness in writing the paper and his irresponsibility as an editor of the magazine had unnecessarily jeopardized the reputation and credibility of the Philippine Orchid Society not only locally but internationally as well.

Golamco Jr. has created chaos for the subject, rather than enlighten the issue. His statements conflicted with his data and vice-versa. It was full of superfluous scenarios. It did not have any document to prove the authenticity of his work. Everything was done haphazardly, apparently without a sound research design that should underpin a technical study.

His discussions were out of focus. He produced botanical evidences which failed to substantiate his ground. He failed to corroborate and correlate his thesis one after the other. The bases are too weak to support his thesis. He just wanted to appear hi-tech, presenting a complicated discussion over a simple problem.

It has become a science fiction because it lacked proper documentation. It is more of an artist’s creative imagination rather than an objective investigation. The presentation lacked coherence because they are so disconnected. Everything was already railroaded towards his conclusion, rather than to allow truthful observations to naturally lead to their conclusion. He failed to support his thesis with any appropriate documents, testimonials and other evidences to prove beyond doubt that he has conducted the study well for ten years! Above all, with his clumsiness in the last part of the article, he even contradicted himself in his own work! For a study that was conducted for 10 years, there should have been more than enough time and caution to avoid the glaring mistakes and erroneous deduction.

The worst faults are:

1. The conflicting tables and illustrations.

2. The absence of any document to authenticate that the study was ever conducted properly.

3. The unconvincingly perfect whole number and perfect proportion of the outcomes.

4. The used of borrowed photographs instead of any original photograph.

5. The defective and non-functional table.

6. The absence of text to discuss the table.

Proposal:

From the conclusions given above, the following recommendations, both corrective and proactive in nature, may be made:

To correct the damage that has been done:

1. Retract the article from publication.

The POS should do so by printing a retraction in the next issue of the Philippine Orchid Review. This work creates a mauvaise reputation (bad reputation) for the Philippine Orchid Society.

2. Mr. Andres S. Golamco Jr., must be reprimanded. He must be made accountable for his misdeeds.

During his tenure as editor for the official magazine of the Philippine Orchid Society, he has used his position as a leverage to come out with defective articles, no less authored by him, not once but for many issues. It simply pre-qualified all his writings to the magazine. This is clearly abuse of trust and authority without due consideration for the negative impact that such action may bring to the organization.

To prevent the occurrence of similar situations in the future:

1. The POS should constitute a review panel composed either by respectable peers or acknowledged experts to review future articles prior to their acceptance for publication.

2. The Editorial Board of the Philippine Orchid Review should require authors to submit supporting documentation especially for technical papers when the papers are submitted for possible publication.

3. And lastly, the Philippine Orchid Society should once and for all recognize it major responsibility to establish it authority/expertise over the waling-waling among other things. To this end, it should immediately create a study group whose aim is to compile and develop knowledge about the Vanda sanderiana in general, to ensure that the Philippines and Filipino orchidists are recognized internationally as leading authorities on the subject. In the short term, this study group should also be responsible for establishing judging guidelines for V. sanderiana.

Miyerkules, Mayo 16, 2012