Hi Japie,

Well I must say your news comes as a bit of a shock and hasn't exactly "made my day".

I think the severing of BSI ties with the FCBS seems to be a backward step and a loss of a valuable resource for all serious bromeliad growers.

Having said all that, perhaps I shouldn't prejudge, maybe the BSI has something better in the pipeline, here's hoping.

Do any of our GW members out there know something more about it that we don't?

All the best, Nev.

That's a shocker! I didn't see that bit earlier this morning. Great, my efforts at hybridising seem in vain now.

Hi Gonzer,

That was my initial thought also until the light in my brain came on and told me that hybridization is never in vain.

It's just the communication of the results through the usual channels that have been knocked for a six.

There is always light at the end of the tunnel however and there's nothing stopping G.W. members from posting details and pic's of their new registrations on our forum site for other members and their friends to see.

Was this move by the BSI just a "money grab" to get more people to join up as members of the BSI to gain access to previously free information?

If so, I think they will get some new members; but in doing so I think they have turned the clock back to the dark ages as far as promoting goodwill among brom. growers world wide is concerned.

Well, I'm confused. Up to this point when you submitted a plant for registration the info went into the registry first, but then the accompanying photo got posted on FCBS with links going both ways. Does this mean that the entire photo index is moving to BSI?

I can see the reasoning behind having the registry and the accompanying photos on the same site, but the official severing of ties and cooperation between FCBS and BSI seems nothing short of spiteful to me. What is to be gained by this move? Certainly not good will. Michael Andreas has worked very hard to build up the FCBS site, and it's been largely a one-man labor of love on his part. As he points out, it has long filled a gap that up until now the BSI has had no interest in filling. Now that it does, I see no reason to cut him off at the knees.

Maybe newly appointed BSI webmaster Nick Bethmann (aka bromadams, aka winterlager) can shed some light on this unfortunate situation.

What is not nice at the moment, is that the BSI Neoregelia (or Bromeliad) Registration Database is not available any more! So, no more searches of all the cv's that were created form a specific plant. Ok, I know a photo search on FCBS can also be done, but there are lots that are registered that there are not pictures of on FCBS - old AND new. I wonder if the BSI plan to make such a search available on their website. Again, I know there IS one, but it gives only Genus, Name, Hybridizer, Photos (and only a Yes, but no way to access the photo) AND it is outdated - December 2008. And you can only download the entire file - more than 200 pages and not do a search on it.

And talking about the BSI, when last did anybody get a Journal? I know that the membership is nt just about getting a little magazine in the post every 2 months, but being here in South Africa, there's hardly any other benefits for me being a member!

Japie

Someone didn't think this change threw. Not very friendly either.

Paid my $40 and I still never got a journal yet. Yeah its posted online, but for that kinda memebership fee I want something solid. Besides I dont have internet at my living quarters so thats a double against me!

Only the BCR is gone. The Photo Index remains on the Council site.

The BCR was built by and has been administered, maintained and managed by the FCBS webmaster, on the FCBS website, for more than ten years. When you sent your registration, the BSI Cultivar Registrar updated the BCR record and sent the picture to the FCBS webmaster who incorporated the picture into the Photo Index and the BCR, both of which were living on the Council site. It seemed as though the BCR was on the BSI site - that was a courtesy the FCBS webmaster extended to the BSI. In reality, it has been on the Council site from the beginning.

It was the decision of the BSI Board of Directors to end this long-time collaboration. To the detriment of all.

The FCBS Photo Index and the other FCBS databases are not going anywhere.

Thanks for explaining that Flabrom. I realised that the FCBS Photo Index is going nowhere, my main concern is what is happening with the BCR Online Database. What is happening with that? Will it be available on the BSI website? It is a very handy tool if you are fiddling with hybridising and want to keep track of what is going on and also to look into the family history of registered cv's. I know there is a Cultivar Registry on BSI, but that only gives the genus, name and hybridiser and it is not frequently updated as the BCR through FCBS was.

Japie

Japie, it is up to the BSI if it wants to create its own database for the BCR. My understanding is that the BSI has no plan in place. They just wanted the BCR off the Council site completely.

The shame of the current BSI version is - not that it is so incomplete and is not searchable - but that it is not readily available to the world - you have to be a BSI member to access it.

Thanks again for the explanation Flabrom. I appreciate it. I am a member of the BSI however and that BCR version is useless to me.

Japie

Yes, thanks for the clarification, flabrom. I'm still waiting to hear what Nick has to say about all of this, and perhaps our current registrar, who sometimes posts here, will have some comments too. Unless BSI has some plan to improve on the previous set-up it's hard to imagine why anyone on the Board would think this was a good idea.

I too use the registry to research parentage and what previous pairings have produced and seem likely to produce. For me that has been it's primary function, but without the photo files or the cross-referenced search feature it's pretty useless. I guess Japie and I and all of the other hybridizers who use it this way will just have to be content with the photo index databases, which, frankly, have been more useful in that respect anyway.

As far as registering any new hybrids, I'm having a hard time seeing much purpose at this point, if that information is not going to be accessible to the general public. This sets registration back to the old days when there was only a hard copy print listing of names that was updated every ten years or so.

On the other hand, some of us (myself included) have been whining about how registration has lost all meaning and the registry has turned into just an ID bank, no more, no less. This certainly puts an end to that, for better or for worse. There can be no conceivable argument for registering every butt-ugly hybrid that leaves your hands if that's not going to help anyone ID it. Might as well just register the truly exceptional ones, which is what other societies do. Maybe this is a good thing in that respect, but it still seems poorly thought out. If we're going to go over to a system of registration based on horticultural merit, there needs to be some sort of official governing body making the rulings, and right now there is none.

In the meantime, we can still use FCBS as an ID bank and submit photos directly to the webmaster without having to go through the registration process. I have a feeling that many people may start doing that rather than registering. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

Hi everyone,

All I can say is it seems a damn shame. That was an oustanding piece of cooperation to provide something very useful to a lot of people. You don't come across many things like that and when you do, they really make the world a better place and I reckon that is pretty important stuff - a lot bigger than just identifying some plants, no matter how interesting or useful that might be.

I hope this has a happy resolution. Cheers, Paul.

I can only agree with you Lisa, i am at a loss to see why this is taking place, think you have said it all for me as well. Jack

You all might be interested in knowing that there was an effort, last year, to review and revise the registration process to address the quality, uniqueness and durability issues that are so often raised these days about new cultivars. The BSI did set up a committee. So far, everything remains the same.

Purposes of the BSI
"The purposes of this society are to promote and maintain public and scientific interest in the research, development, preservation, and distribution of bromeliads, both natural and hybrid, throughout the world, and to promote fellowship."
Have you people forgot the BSI purpose entirely? Was this costing the BSI to much money?

Since no one asked the membership about this change and it clearly was not in the best interest of the BSI members or anyone potentially interested in growing and collecting these beautiful plants. I ask this "what were you people thinking?"

This appears to be a vindictive action on the part of a person or persons inside the BSI and a clear indication of very weak leadership with a personal venue in mind. It certainly was not good fellowship.

I personally would not be proud to be associated with any organization that doesn't respect the best interests of the membership as a whole or the society's main purpose.

The FCBS site searchable BCR database was a treasure to everybody that grows bromeliads and now it is lost to us because of a few people making bad decisions that affect the rest of us.

The BSI decision has not promoted public interest, research or preservation. Basically there will be no further need for the BCR as a disorganized list. We had something that worked very well, it cost very little and benefitted many people. Growers and hybridizers will only need to post pictures of new plants with unregistered names on their own website. This is all that is necessary for the buying public to know what they are purchasing. Maybe in the future your efforts could be directed at more productive projects.

Thank you Michael Andreas for the hard work you have done and will continue to do. My hats off to you and Karen for your hours of tireless work on the FCBS website, the BCR database, supplying a good research tool with a wealth of information, protecting our photo's from commercial use and the thousands of personal photo's you have contributed over the years.

Hi HDD,

You summed it up beautifully, and I for one totally agree with what you've said.

Reading between the lines I still have a sneaking suspicion that all this is based on a "money grab", because correct me if I'm wrong, but to now access the BCR now you must become a BSI member.

If the purpose of this was intended to be a membership drive, then it's badly backfired on whoever initially suggested the idea. I mean who would want to be a member of an organization which goes against the very foundation on which the BSI was founded, i.e "public and scientific interest in the research, development, preservation, and distribution of bromeliads, both natural and hybrid, throughout the world, and to promote fellowship". This act certainly doesn't promote fellowship and seems to me to contradict quite a few of the other areas also.

Like HDD I also would like to add my appreciation to Michael and Karen Andreas for the enormous amount of work they have done in the interests of bromeliad growers world wide, you've certainly created something very worthwhile for everyone.

As my mother used to say, "It'll all come out in the wash" and then we will all know why this very unpopular decision was endorsed by the BSI Board of Directors.

All the best, Nev.

With the onset of the internet age, people no longer depend on organizations that are in the dark ages for information. I know I won't renew my membership in BSI. It has out lived its usefulness to me. Now we can connect with people with like interests and get all the information we desire by typing it into a search engine. This forum is one example of that.

Yesterday I sent email to the BSI secretary to clarify the board minutes of the BSI Board of Directors meeting wherein they decided to take over the BCR. Specifically I asked if a vote had been taken or if this had been done by consensus. Today I received a response: she will not answer my question.

When a long-time BSI member asks a question about the business of the society and is rebuffed, it makes you wonder exactly how business is being conducted by the BSI.

Some of us have been in communication with the BCR registrar. He has a lot on his plate at the moment but will try to comment when he has time. I'm not going to quote him, but suffice it to say that this was NOT his decision and he has expressed his opposition to it, so please don't fire off any angry emails his way.

I'm getting the impression this is a more complicated situation than we know, so maybe it's best to hold off on any further speculation until somebody who was there can come along and explain it.

Let me echo Lisa when I say that this decision was not the Cultivar Registrar's choice. Indeed he recommended against it.

Actually, this is all pretty straightforward. The BSI wants the BCR to be completely on the BSI site. Certain members of the board have been trying to effect this for several years and this year it passed.

Yes, there definitely are personalties involved and some vindictiveness, but in the end, the BSI wants the BCR and no longer wants the FCBS webmaster involved. The FCBS webmaster has complied with the wishes of the BSI.

How can so many BSI people not know what happens in their meetings? Or are these meetings being held by less than a majority of the voting members?

Here is a link that might be useful: comments

Minxie, the BSI Board of Directors meetings are held once a year, in the summer. During the Conference years, the meetings are held right before the conference commences. In the off years, they are held at various locations. These are not general membership meetings - the general membership votes only on the representatives for their regions and have no influence or impact on these business meetings beyond their election of delegates.

Of the 20 or so directors on the BSI board, eight were in attendance at the meeting in June.