Unknown Neo species

avane_gwJanuary 18, 2009

Please help! I got this little plant with the name tag : Species D. The story behind it, Lyn ordered some plants from overseas somewhere a while back and in the catalogue was listed: Various Neo species. So she asked for it. When they got here, they where labelled species A, species B, etc.

Could it be Neo bahiana, perhaps? The plant has quite a sturdy stolon. It should be mature as an inflorescence has started forming already. It is planted in a 6" pot.

Japie

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
LisaCLV(HI)

How about a pic of the inflorescence when it blooms, Japie? See any signs of cup color yet? Any other distinguishing markings? If it was a form of bahiana I think the whole plant would be hard as wood, and it doesn't look like it is.

It looks a bit like an unidentified species I got from Michael (med-small, stoloniferous, grey scurfy coating, pink cup at anthesis), but it's hard to say for sure. Of course that wouldn't help much if it was the same, but if you can get a flower photo you can send it in for ID.

    Bookmark   January 18, 2009 at 2:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
avane_gw

Lisa, the plant has a bit sturdy leaves but not nearly as hard and thick as those of cruenta. The small spines on the leaf margins are spaced about .5cm apart and are razor sharp. The terminal spine is very soft though. I would not say there's a sign of cup colour, maybe a bit more intense than the rest of the leaves. The stolon is about as thick as my small finger.

    Bookmark   January 18, 2009 at 2:59PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
LisaCLV(HI)

Hmmm..... viewed from the top I don't think that's the same as my plant. How reliable is this source, i.e. are you sure it's a species and not a hybrid? The only thing it's reminding me of is xNeomea Strawberry! That doesn't have stolons though, so I give up.

I do want to see the bloom, though.

    Bookmark   January 18, 2009 at 6:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blue_heeler

Looks very like my Bahiana which I have attached a photo of. The label on my plant has 2 names on it, the other is Pabstiana. Does anyone know if there is a difference in the plants or what the distinction is. Had a look at Uncle Derek Says on FCBS but I'm still confused.

Here is a link that might be useful:

    Bookmark   January 19, 2009 at 8:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kerry_t_australia(9)

Blue heeler - N.bahiana and N. pabstiana are the same plant. Neoregelia pabstiana is the old name, and N. bahiana is the amended and accepted current name. There does seem to be slight variations in its form and leaf colour. Under what heading has Unc D written about this on FCBS site? I can't find it.

Japie's N. species D does look similar, but with less-succulent leaves than N. bahiana.

K

    Bookmark   January 20, 2009 at 2:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
blue_heeler

Hi Kerry, I have gone back through my notes and it may not have been Uncle D. but there was a reference to Neo. diamantinensis also. Should keep better notes!!!!! How does Neo. Pabst (Geoff Lawn) on FCBS (a cultivar)fit into the picture? It states Neo. pabstii (another name???) is a cultivar of Neo. bahiana. It looks even more like avane's photo. The mystery deepens.

    Bookmark   January 20, 2009 at 6:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bromadams(10b)

That flower spike looks more like Aechmea than Neo.

    Bookmark   January 20, 2009 at 8:07AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
LisaCLV(HI)

Japie, this is my unknown "Neo sp. Brazil". Obviously it's not as pink as yours, but it's been in lower light conditions, so that may not mean much. Still waiting for a bloom! I saw Michael's plant in bloom (or post-bloom) and it had a nice pink center, very unusual. If yours doesn't get the cup color then it's not the same, but the size, texture, stoloniferous habit and degree of openness do seem fairly similar.

Re: N. bahiana: if you look up the species in the FCBS index (link) it shows pics of various forms, some of them previously described as other species, i.e. N. pabstiana and N. diamantina. Leme has found that there are no significant morphological differences between these species, so they've all now been lumped into N. bahiana, along with the former N. hatschbachii and N. intermedia. What they all have in common is a tubular, upright habit and thick, succulent leaves, neither of which I am seeing here. Also, none of the bahianas are stoloniferous. It should be easy enough to tell when it blooms, though. N. bahiana is in the subgenus Longipetalopsis, and as such it has very distinctive long-petalled flowers. If it has those, I'll eat my words! ;-)

The name "N. pabstii" gets used a lot, but that's apparently wrong. Leme says "pabstiana", as do most other references. Still, it persists. The FCBS entry for 'Pabst' says: "N. pabstii is now treated as a synonym of N. bahiana. It is sufficiently different vegetatively to be treated as a Cultivar." At any rate, what they're saying is that this former species is now considered a cv. of bahiana, and that's the cv. name they've given it.

Here is a link that might be useful: N. bahiana

    Bookmark   January 20, 2009 at 2:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
geoff3147

The cultivar name Neoregelia bahiana 'Pabst' was registered so this distinctive purplish red-leaved clone (formerly known as Neo. pabstiana) would not lose it's identity once lumped with all the other bahiana clones, as well as those species made synonymous with Neo. bahiana by Leme in 1998. See my article in BSI Journal July-Aug. 2007, p.170.

    Bookmark   January 21, 2009 at 9:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
avane_gw

And here is the plant in flower. Not much change in the cup colour, maybe a little more intense.

Japie

    Bookmark   February 4, 2009 at 2:42PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bryan69

Its not pabstiana This is pabstiana

    Bookmark   February 4, 2009 at 3:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
LisaCLV(HI)

There's a bit of a pink tinge to the cup, but the whole plant is so pink it's kind of hard to see. I'll have to wait until mine blooms and see if the inflorescence looks the same, but I guess that won't really help much since I still don't know what it is!

What it is not, however, is N. bahiana or any member of the subgenus Longipetalopsis. You remember how long and narrow the petals and corolla tube were on your rubrovittata, Japie? Well, bahiana's in that same group, and the flowers should be similar in shape. Other members of the subgenus are azevedoi, kerryi and mucugensis, so you can check the FCBS pictures of their flowers and get the general idea. Too bad you don't have Leme's book, there as some good pictures of this group in there, but Tropiflora's pic of bahiana shows it a bit better than the ones in the photo index:

Here is a link that might be useful:

    Bookmark   February 4, 2009 at 6:58PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
ID help for a couple of things at Harry P. Leu Gardens in Orlando
I was at Leu Gardens earlier this week and, among a...
gdadtravelinig
Bert in a basket
I have an Ae Bert that I would like to plant in an...
dogboy27
photo #2 of id - exserta hybrid?
Here is the photo of the bloom spike. my apologies...
Brian311
Viresa question
Ok, so I have probalby already managed to kill a small...
cygnwulf
?? Achemea tessmannii
I got this as no ID.. It is blooming and looks similar...
radhavall
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™