Heterosexual?

concentrica and ?. That first pic reminds me of xNeophytum Hula Girl.

Thanks, Nick, that was more the kind of answer I was going for! But you're way off. ;-)

They're Porteas. Or at least they were when I made the cross. Since then it appears that daddy P. leptantha has become an Aechmea, so now they're bigeneric. Not that mommy P. alatisepala minds. She accepted the leptantha pollen, no questions asked.

I crossed the two with cut flower production in mind, but I got some pretty spiffy foliage for a non-Neo in the bargain. It kind of opens up a new range of possibilities, particularly if they're fertile. Crossing the siblings could give some interesting results.

You are the Neo queen so I focused on that. I have alatisepala and leptantha and I should have at least picked out the alatisepala.

I'm hoping to cross alatisepala with paniculigera. I was also planning on crossing leptantha and distichantha. Florel is my best friend now and should make this all come true soon. I did some paniculigera crosses last year and 8 months later the seeds are still not ripe. That is one long lasting inflorescence.

Here are some alatisepala pics:

{{gwi:438168}}

{{gwi:438170}}

"You are the Neo queen so I focused on that." Yeah, I was hoping that would throw people off. ;-)

Your clone of alatisepala looks pretty different from mine, but the structure of the inflo is about the same. It's one of my favorites. Do you have a pic of your paniculigera in bloom? Some of the photos I've seen look pretty spectacular, but I've never been able to find the plant.

panic...I'm not 100% sure yet, but it does seem to take pollen from just about anything except itself.

{{gwi:438172}}

{{gwi:438174}}

Lisa, although my sense of humor is somewhat warped, I too like the others never suspected that you dabbled w/Porteas. From Neo Queen to Portea Princess!

I love Porteas, Gonz. We mostly use them as cut flowers, the red-pink-purple-blue color scheme of most of them is popular with the florists. Most of them cross fairly easily with one another, and nobody else seems to be working with them much, which adds to the appeal. There are a rather limited number of species to chose from, though, so after a while many of the hybrids start looking the same.

P. Ted Teves: alatisepala x Pink Shadow (not sure if the last one is petropolitana v. noetigii or silveirae, they look so similar)

{{gwi:438176}}

This one is petropolitana v. extensa x kermesina. I was thinking of calling it P. May Moir, but I haven't actually selected a clone to propagate, we just cut all of the flowers from all of the offspring. Some have purple foliage, others green.

{{gwi:438179}}

BTW, this is my alatisepala, I think I've shown it here before:

{{gwi:438181}}

As for your previous answer, most broms could more properly be described as hermaphrodites. The do engage in heterosexual relations, but are not necessarily choosy about which part they'll play, so I'm afraid I can't give you full points for that one.

That's a nice looking plant, Nick. It must be in the same subgenus as mexicana and lueddemanniana, it has that same look, but the colorful bracts add a lot. A cross between that and alatisepala would probably be very nice, but if you've been waiting 8 months already........ I kinda don't think it took. Aechmeas usually set up within a couple of months.

Lisa, you may be right about the seeds. I have noticed some distinct swelling on most of the crosses I did but who knows.

paniculigera is in the subgenus Aechmea although the latest DNA studies are showing that Bromeliaceae is a big mess. For example, mexicana and lueddemanniana are closely related to skinneri and tuitensis and nudicaulis is closely related to Q marmorata. I'm going to have to try that cross.

"paniculigera is in the subgenus Aechmea"

Did you get that from that Aechmea chart (below) or do you have some other info? I ask because on that table the subg. Aechmea seems to be just a catch-all category for anything they're not sure of. It's not a cohesive group at all, so I'm not sure if it is even a valid subgenus.

The A. nudicaulis/Q. marmorata connection makes sense to me. They have many similar traits. I'm not sure what the taxonomic distinction is between Aechmea, Androlepis and Ursulea, but those other species do all have a similar look too.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ae. spp. table

These two links have extremely good taxonomic data, including subgenera.

http://www.bromtravels.nl/ht/lists-pipusp-ao.html
http://www.bromtravels.nl/ht/lists-pipusp-pz.html

I'm having a hard time interpreting those links, Nick. Underneath AECHMEA it lists: CHEVALIERA, ERIOSTAX, GRAVISIA, HOPLOPHYTUM, LAMPROCOCCUS, MACROCHORDION, ORTGIESIA, PLATYAECHMEA, PODAECHMEA, STREPTOCALYX, WITTMACKIA. Are those supposed to be the subgenera or are they former genus designations that have since been sunk into Aechmea? I've never heard of Eriostax or Hoplophytum, and Streptocalyx was only fairly recently abandoned as a genus, but still describes a very distinct alliance of species. The others I recognize as subgenus names. I'm not seeing a subg. Aechmea on that list, and the designations by the species seem to agree with the table on my link above, so it seems likely that one is just referencing the other.

I'm also not sure what to make of the alphabet soup below each species. If anyone understands this better than I do, please explain.

I'd guess those are synonyms too. The subgenera (if there are any) below that, right next to the word "Subgenera"!

Subgenera: Aechmea (type: Aechmea paniculata Ruiz & Pavón), Chevaliera (Gaudichaud ex Beer) Baker 1889 (lectotype: Chevaliera sphaerocephala Gaudichaud ex Beer), Lamprococcus (Beer) Baker 1889 (lectotype: Aechmea fulgens Brongniart), Macrochordion (De Vriese) Baker 1889 (type: Bromelia tinctoria Martius), Ortgiesia (Regel) Mez 1892 (type: Ortgiesia tillandsioides Regel), Platyaechmea (Baker) Baker 1889 (type: Aechmea distichantha Lemaire), Podaechmea Mez 1896 (lectotype: Pironneava lueddemanniana K. Koch), Pothuava (Baker) Baker 1889 (type: Bromelia nudicaulis Linnaeus)

The codes have eluded me and the abbreviations for the publications need a key which I haven't found yet.

The aechmea subgenera and species have been enumerated on wikipedia, so just go there. It looks right to me. In fact, that is where I found the links I posted.

Here is a link that might be useful: Aechmea on wikipedia

Ah, okay, I see that part now. I plead font fatigue. ;-)

I'm still not buying it, though. If that's all of the subgenera, where do the Gravisia alliance and the Streptocalyx alliance fit into it? They've got both of those lumped into subg. Aechmea, and those two groups couldn't be more distinct. Also they've put fasciata, dealbata, flavorosea, etc. in there, and the Baensch book lists all of those as Platyaechmea. I might not quibble with separating those out from the chantinii, zebrina, dichlamydea etc. group, but I sure wouldn't throw them all into the same bag with blanchetiana, biflora, filicaulis, macrochlamys and ramosa! Any subcategory that contains all of those diverse species is a catch-all, in my opinion. A. filicaulis is fairly close to the Billbergias, and macrochlamys is nearly a Portea, and yet here they are holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Nope. Nuh uh.

If fendleri, spectabilis and castelnavii are in subg. Aechmea too, then I'll concede that paniculigera may have more in common with them than with the Podaechmeas, but that's about as far as I'll go. For now...

Oh well, guess I'll just have to wait for DNA analysis to straighten things out.

The DNA testing does seem to be starting up. Katharina Schulte seems to be doing a lot and I hope that she continues. The problem with DNA testing is that you probably need to test the majority of the species in a subfamily like Bromelioideae in order to make any radical proposals acceptable. And based on last year's Quesnelia analysis, I can't imagine anything that isn't radical.

Lisa, I did a quick look to see how long I've had to wait for Aechmea seeds to ripen and it does vary quite a bit. The fastest Aechmea seed producer for me was Ae nudicaulis at 6 weeks. Second mention goes to Bert at 7 weeks and that was during the winter! The slowest was blanchetiana at 9 months although blanchetiana gave me flowers for 6 months and nothing ripened until 3 months after the last flower. kuntzeana took 5-6 months with fruit ripening slowly over a 45 day period. I looked at my paniculigera again today and some of the sterile fruits are starting to turn. The bigger, fatter ones that I crossed are still hanging in there and hopefully will give me seeds.

BTW, my H. edmundoi has been flowering since May 1st 09, I think I'm going to get a few more flowers yet, so let's say it will have been flowering for 9 months. Nothing that I pollinated 8 months ago has ripened and I wouldn't be surprised if it selfs.

I'm still waiting for the paniculigera seeds: it's been 10 months now. I did all the crosses in the first week of June. I plucked a seed pod from one of the crosses that I did multiple times and it had seeds! They weren't quite ready yet but it's very encouraging. Almost all the crosses were bigeneric and I'm worried that my crosses may all just be selfs since the success rate was too close to 100%.

This pic shows two fatties with markers and some that I didn't cross.
{{gwi:438183}}

Some of those resemble Neo Mr Odean

Today, I cut off that big guy in the middle of the picture and got 20 nice seeds despite the fact that there was no color change and the pod didn't want to be taken. I was surprised that there was no high fructose bromeliad syrup in the seed pod but the seeds where hard and dark. I sowed the seeds today and I won't take any more seeds until I know they are viable or the seed pods, that obviously have seeds, turn color. About 10% of the seed pods have turned brown already and I expect the rest to do so soon but this guy keeps me guessing.

No juice + seeds dark and hard = not viable, usually. I get this every so often with Neos. Sometimes they'll all be like that, in which case it's probably a compatibility issue, but other times it'll be only certain berries. You might check the other fruits, but if there was no color change something may be not quite right there.

I actually did some Aechmea x Aechmea crosses on this guy so if they aren't viable it's not because they are all bigenerics. In fact, the one crosses I'm really interested in are the crosses with kuntzeana and mariae-reginae.

I think I'm just not waiting long enough. 3 weeks ago when I cut off a fruit the seeds were white. Now they are dark but still no juice. So maybe in three or four more weeks all will be right. For some reason I keep thinking that something is going to come and eat the fruits when they ripen. I guess I'd better put it inside the screened in area even though it's kind of beat up and I'd rather not have to look at it.

No, the no juice thing will not improve if you give it more time. Once it's dry, it's going to stay dry, and that uncharacteristically dark seed is a red flag too.

It doesn't have to be bigeneric to have compatibility issues. Certain Neos just won't cross with certain others, and Aechmea is a much more diverse genus than Neoregelia (it's really a dozen genera lumped into one, IMO).

Lisa, you nailed this one. None of the seeds germinated. I also had the exact same issue with my Androlepsis crosses so I'm going to blame the cold weather and try again. I have another big female Androlepsis so I can try crossing that again this winter or spring. My Androlepsis flowered in December but I've heard that they also flower in March, at least down in Miami. I doubt that my paniculigera pups will flower this year, I'll have to wait another year.

Lisa, Your Portea hybrids look fantastic.Have you used Portea fosteriana in your hybridising.
It's a nice plant as the photo from Mt Cootha BG shows.

{{gwi:438185}}

Cheers
Brod

No, Brod. I've been on the lookout for a P. fosteriana but have never come across one. I do have a few unnamed specimens that have never bloomed, so who knows? Of course if they're not good bloomers that kind of defeats the purpose.

BTW, since this thread has been resurrected, can anyone tell the difference between the FCBS pics of P. silvierae and P. politana v. noettigii?

Lisa, there doesn't seem to be to much difference. Maybe silvierae is more silver in the foliage ( hence the name ). The inflorescence looks the same. Interesting question.
Nice plant I want one.

Regards

Brod

I think P. silvierae is probably named after someone named Silviera, Brod. I doubt it has anything to do with the foliage. I have (or had?) one that looks like one or the other of those. I got it from Tropiflora under the name 'Pink Shadow'. I did several crosses with it so I'd really like to have a valid name, but unfortunately I can't find a photo of it anywhere and I'm not even sure where the heck the plant is at the moment! Oh well...

At any rate, here is a cross I made with it and alatisepala. It will be registered as P. 'Ted Teves'.
{{gwi:438187}}

And then here are some other Portea "nonames". The first two are tagged only as "Skotak #1" and "Skotak #2" (from Michael):
{{gwi:438188}}
{{gwi:438189}}

I've had them several years and still no bloom. The foliage is nice, but I'm dying to see what color they'll be. Maybe time to break out the Florel.

The next one I got as 'Jungles', which is a Bullis name. The closest I can guess is maybe a form of petropolitana v. petropolitana? Doesn't quite match the FCBS pics, though, and the foliage is certainly more red. Anybody recognize this?
{{gwi:438190}}

Another one that presumably came from Bullis as 'Macas':
{{gwi:438191}}

No bloom yet, so no clue. I did see a pic on eBay before buying it, but I can't remember now what it looked like. I do wish they would use the species names instead of just giving them cv. names. I see they are selling P. alatisepala as P. 'Candy', so I don't think these are hybrids.

Ha! I see I already posted a pic of Ted T above. Brain cells dropping like flies, I tell you...... ;-)

Hi Guys

Lisa, as you are questioning the ID of several Portea's, what are your thoughts on the ID of Brod's Portea fosteriana, I tend to think his plant is Aechmea macrochlamys not a Portea.

Pinkbroms

There seems to be a lot of confusion between those two species, Ross. Since I don't have P. fosteriana, my only reference for what it looks like is other people's photos. Padilla's photo of P. fosteriana that originally appeared in the BSI Journal (and later in her second book) certainly resembles Ae. macrochlamys. The two specimens shown on FCBS look somewhat different (especially the first one), but they don't look much alike either. Will the real P. fosteriana please stand up?

I bought Ae. macrochlamys years ago, but could never get it to bloom. The only flower I ever saw was as a result of treating it with Florel, and it came out so small and distorted that it's hard for me to know how large or elongated the head could become under other conditions. There also seem to be different color forms of it. Mine had red bracts and purple flowers, but I was recently stumped by one of our Ms. Tate's bromquiz questions because her macrochlamys was light pink and lavender. My plant also had a very open, Neo-like rosette with dark blotches and big black spines. Very distinctive, but I'm not seeing that in any of the photos, so I'm not sure what criteria to use to judge this plant.

I'm glad this was brought up as I was wondering myself after seeing photos that are quite different. On the Australian brom website their photo looks just like the photo I posted of Portea fosteriana. There is a photo of Portea fosteriana in the book Bromeliads in the Brazilian Wilderness which looks just like the bottom photo in the FCBC site.

here is a photo of mine that seems to line up with your description Lisa. Mine is in full sun and has not flowered yet.

{{gwi:438192}}

Here is a photo of a friends. This is quite large. It was ID as Ae.macrochlamys by many experts.

{{gwi:438193}}

Brod

And the plot thickens.....

Brod, your first photo is consistant with what I bought (from Tropiflora) as Ae. macrochlamys. The second one..... boy, I don't know, but what a stunner!

Hi Lisa

So what was the out come of Ms Tates own personal little forum as the rest of us here aren't privvy to that one, obviously you guys didn't come up with a difinitive answer to the difference between these 2 plants but what result did you arrive at.

Nice plants Brod but foliage alone gives no clues.

Surely somebody else has a thought on this matter, there is obviously a mix up with this group of plants but what should we look for to seperate them.

I'm trying to incite discussion & observation here.

Pinkbroms

Lisa,

I like the colour on your Portea "nonames" bring out the Florel!

Brod I have a Portea silveirae with a good number of pups forming - I can give you one down the track also it looks like all the berries are possibly full of seed if you want to try and grow some out.

Rick

The drawings and discriptions in L B Smiths book Flora Neoropicana of Aechmea macrochlamys seem to my reading favour the photos in FCBS as the correct macrochlamys form. The description of Portea fosteriana seems ( again to my untrained reading) to fit with the photo I posted earlier of P. fosteriana. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these plants can give us a clearer picture. As I have both of these it would be good to have these named properly.
Rick, I would be very interested in a pup and seed of your P. silveirae. Maybe I'll see you at the next meeting if you can make it.

Brod

"So what was the out come of Ms Tates own personal little forum as the rest of us here aren't privvy to that one"

No private forum and no outcome, Ross. She was simply sharing with me one of the quizzes that several of the regulars here had previously taken at Bromcamp. I failed to identify that particular photo because the colors threw me off, but having checked the FCBS photos of macrochlamys, it appears there is a broader color range for the species than I thought.

Rick, my seedlings are still too small to Florel. They're not even as large as P. alatisepala, and since leptantha is a much larger species than that, I figure they still have a lot of growing to do. If I treated them now, the flowers would almost certainly be small and stunted. Maybe next year. Of course it might help if I fed them a little. ;-)

Hi Lisa

NO, it's not that private, I do get some of it.

Rick, you're on the right track by going to S&D but you have probably done the same as me & got confused with some of the description as the key wording is "white farinose" = mealy, powdery; covered with a meal-like powder for Ae. macrochlamys & "pale-lepidote" = small scurfy scales scarcely visible or they maybe coarse & spreading & highly visible for Portea fosteriana, all this got a little confusing when we start to look at photo's of the 2 plants & there is a mix of the same thing under both names, some mealy/powdery & some not so. I've had collectors asking me for a few years for clarification & there still seems to be differing opinions, the answer I got off UD is if it's woolly it's Ae. macrochlamys, if it's bald it's Portea fosteriana, I put this together with S&D & I feel I can comfortably seperate my plants into some sort of order, maybe. D also has a feeling that a hybrid may be involved, so if somebody can grow some seed & check the results it may help.

Pinkbroms

Ref: A Bromeliad Glossary, BSI.

Rick, do you have a photo of your Portea silveirae
Cheers
Brod

Brod,

Below is a photo of my Portea silveirae, I won't be at Thursdays meeting; I'm working nights to support my Brom habit.

The silveirae pups have a bit of growing to do, I'll bring you a pup and some seed when its ready.

Rick

{{gwi:438194}}

{{gwi:438195}}

Hi Rick,

Thanks for posting the Portea silveirae photos. Can't wait for those pups to put on some size. A great looking brom. Have fun at work.

Cheers

Brod

It's a nice looking plant, but it doesn't look anything like the FCBS pic of silvierae, so where does that leave us? ;-)

Lisa,

I have to agree that it looks nothing like it, it had a magnificent flower but I didn't take a photo and can't remember if it looked like the FCBS photo.

I will have to have a closer look at the spines and foliage.

Rick