For which genus? Below is a table of Aechmea species that lists the subgenus of each one. Leme's book "Canistropsis" gives at least a partial listing for the Neos. I haven't come across one for any other genera, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. Of course not all of the other genera are divided into subgenera.

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

Yes, there is such a listing. Go to bsi.org and select Bromeliad Taxonomy.

Lisa,

That Aechmea table contains some very good information, can you share how you found it?

Thanks,

Rick

Thanks Lisa, that does list the subgenus for each aechmea. I was also interested in Neo and Billbergia.

flabrom if the bsi taxonomy page has subgenera it's very well hidden.

Oops! Misread "subfamily" for "subgenus".

Short of plowing through Flora Neotropica (which obviously has some dating issues), I don't know of a single source for this information. It certainly is worth looking in to.

Rick, I don't remember how I came across that Aechmea chart. I must have been doing a search for a particular species and it came up as a result, but I've got it bookmarked now. Very helpful!

As to the Bills, there are two groups: the helicoids (subg. Helicoides???) and the Billbergia group. The helicoids (aka "watchspring" type) are very easy to tell from the others when in bloom, as the floral structure is pretty distinctive. The buds are much longer and narrower than the Bill group, and when open, the petals coil tightly like a watchspring. The stamens and pistil are also very elongated, and the pollen is white, as opposed to yellow/orange in the other group. The inflorescences in this group tend to be pendant or semi-pendant, but so are some in the other group. Just scrolling through the photo index, I'd put alphonsi-joannis, brachysiphon, brasiliensis, decora, eloisae, issingiana, jandebrabanderi, kuhlmannii, meyeri, oxysepala, pallidiflora, porteana, robert-readii, rosea, stenopetala, tessmannii, violacea and zebrina into the helicoid group, just using the old eyeballs. The rest I'd put into the Billbergia group. The only odd man out is B. viridiflora, which doesn't seem to fit neatly into either category, so I'm not sure about that one. I heard Don Beadle say that that species was almost included in the Aechmeas anyway, so I guess it's kind of a missing link. The floral structure is similar to species like A. filicaulis.

Most of the Neos you are likely to run across will be in subg. Neoregelia. A second subgenus, Hylaeaicum, includes that group of upper Amazon species like eleutheropetala, leviana, margaretae, meeana, mooreana, myrmecophylla, pendula, rosea, tarapotoensis and wurdackii. These are pretty easy to eyeball too, as they tend to have a similar general appearance and growth habit, i.e. tough, spiny, stoloniferous, often with the rosette becoming somewhat ball-shaped. The flowers are small and white, and unlike other Neos, the ripe ovaries on many (all?) of them will turn bright blue or blue-green. In my experience these guys are far enough removed from other Neos to not want to cross with them at all, although there is at least one hybrid on the books that claims otherwise. Ae. aculeatosepala was once considered to be a part of this group before it was kicked into Aechmea, another odd man out. My vote is for making this into a separate genus, but I guess I'll have to let the real taxonomists make that call.

Recently Elton Leme has created two more subgenera of Neos: Protoregelia and Longipetalopsis. So far the first group seems to have only one species: N. longisepala. Leme lists the following species in subg. Longipetalopsis: azevedoi, bahiana, bragarum, brigadeirensis, brownii, diversifolia, ibitipocensis, inexpectata, kerryi, leucophoea, longipedicellata, menescalii, mucugensis, paulistana, rubrovittata and tenebrosa. Apart from bahiana and rubrovittata, you don't see most of these in cultivation that often, at least not yet. As the name implies, they have comparatively long petals for the size of the flower. According to Leme, N. wilsoniana kind of straddles this group and the Neoregelia group.

Okay, that's about all I know. I imagine the Tillandsias are divided into subgenera too, but you'll have to ask somebody else about that!

What is the significance of a subgenera? They seem to get elevated later on.

I have almost all of Leme's books and I suppose I can go through and get the subgenera and the species. Maybe I'll do that and send it to the bsi webmaster.

As near as I can tell, HDD, subgenera are created when the species within a genus seem to naturally sort themselves out into 2 or more distinct groupings with markedly similar floral morphology. I'm not sure what criteria are used to decide whether or not a subgenus deserves to be elevated to a genus, and apparently taxonomists don't always agree on it either. Some tend to be "lumpers" by temperament, while others are "splitters". Not being a taxonomist, my own opinions on the subject are more gut feelings than anything else, but it seems to me that when the members of one subgenus consistently refuse to cross-pollinate with the members of another, it's time to start thinking about giving them their own genus. I suppose that would put me in the splitter camp, although I can think of some species that I would probably combine too.

Also, you have to figure that we're looking only at a point in time in the evolutionary process. Natural hybrids can and do occur between 2 species growing in close proximity, and over 20 or 30 generations they may become stable enough to be considered species in their own right. At the same time, 2 or more populations of the same species that have become separated by geography or changing conditions may gradually become so distinct as to be considered separate species. It's a system in constant flux, so we can't really expect nature to be as well organized as we would like. There are always going to be grey areas.

BTW, just for clarification, "genus" is singular, "genera" is plural.

According to Harry Luther, director of the Bromeliad Identification Center, there is no single list of subgenera. It sure sounds like a worthy project.

The BSI no longer has a webmaster - the one they had has resigned so the site is not being updated.

Interesting. Lisa - thanks for the listing of the Aechmea subgenera.

I was just having a look at where some of my plants fit in and found that A. fasciata is listed in the subgenus Aechmea, while A. fasciata v. purpurea, along with a couple of other A. fasciata varieties, is listed in the subgenus Platyaechmea, along with A. chantinii etc.

Does anyone know the correct subgenus for A. fasciata and its varieties? - can't be spread across two subgenera if its is just the one species - or is there some doubt about this? Cheers, Paul

Hmmm...... that must be some kind of error, Paul. I hadn't noticed that, but now that I look at the list, I'm wondering if Aechmea is really a valid subgenus at all, or is it just a default category? All of the other subgenera seem fairly cohesive, but that one just seems like a big catch-all. They've got all of the former Streptocalyx in there as well as the Gravisia alliance, among other things. Those two groups could hardly be less alike, and I would have thought they would each form their own subgenus.

I agree there's no way you could split one species into two subgenera, and whatever group fasciata is in should also include caesia, dealbata, flavorosea and gigantea, since they have similar inflorescences. For what it's worth, the Baensch's book puts fasciata, caesia and dealbata into Platyaechmea, which makes more sense to me. Unfortunately they only give the subgenus for some of the species in the book, not all of them.

I guess that chart is not as much help as I thought!

Lisa, thanks for the extra info - more and more interesting.

The chart was certainly a help, but when was taxonomy ever straightforward? I wonder if some hardy soul will try another revision of the genus. Of course, that would probably just open up a new can of worms ... or possibly chromosomes? (sorry)

I admit to being a novice to this discussion of subgenera. However, I looked in Smith and Downs and found Ae. fasciata, Ae. fasciata v. fasciata and Ae. fasciata v. pupurea to all be listed under Platyaechmea. Granted, things have shifted since its publication - but at least they started in the same place.

Hey Lisa, your wealth of knowledge is amazing.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting post.

Cheers Richard

So I've been digging through current research and came across a citation saying there are 7 sub-genera in Aechmea:
Aechmea
Lamprococcus
Macrochordion
Ortgiesia
Platyaechmea
Podaechmea
Pothuava

Interesting things are brewing...
-andy

Andy - what happened to the Gravisia and Chavaliera groups/sub-genera? Or is Gravisia a sub-sub-genus - or merely a "complex"? Does that current research make any reference to either?

Is it true that Chavaliera is now a genus of its own?

Who decides such things officially? To what degree/percentage of consensus, amongst respected taxonomists, qualifies general acceptance of any reclassifications?

Curious K :)

Think this has been resurrected .. not many spp. in the group .
I have veitchii and magdalenae ,and maybe tayoensis is in this group as well ?

a quick google found this on Bromeliads in Australia site ....
"- Despite Chevaliera being resurrected to genus status in Bromeliaceae of Ecuador Bromelioideae 2002 this treats it as a subgenus of Aechmea"

I can't imagine anyone spending any time on reorganizing anything in the subfamily Bromelioideae unless they are using DNA analysis.

Hey Kerry, it was a passing mention, so unfortunately they didn't mention that (although I did re-read the article searching for that). I will go through and pay more attention to the species and I might be able to figure out where they are placing them now.

It is interesting the way it seems to work. Anyone can publish whatever they want. Obviously they need to provide an argument showing the evidence that they use to come to the conclusion...and the article needs to be peer-reviewed to make sure it is sound logic and stuff. But basically someone puts a stake in the ground proclaiming something. Other people can agree or refute the study/findings in their published articles. But again it takes evidence. And if people agree and believe what is published they will reference and cite the study for further work that has been done. So far everything is working toward a consensus without much controversy.

All of the studies I have found that approach the Bromelioideae are very hesitant to make any firm claims yet. It is such a 'young' group and for some reason bromeliad DNA doesn't change very fast (the way they can differentiate between subfamilies, genera, and even species), so they are finding specific codes from specific parts of the cells that change a little more rapidly. So the reality is that they need to (and are doing) many tests with many different methods to try to figure it out. And they are still having trouble figuring it all out.

A recent Quesnelia study is a good example. They found out it is a mess and not a cohesive group, but it was such a mess they didn't even proposed how to break it up and where to put the species. The subgenus Billbergiopsis (in Quesnelia) is closely related to the Billbergias, but not close enough to toss into the Bills. The Bills are one of the few 'clean' and 'obvious' groups within the Bromeloids (other than B. pallidiflora that might be more of an Aechmea). They knew that the Quesnelia subgenus Quesnelia was closely affiliated with the Aechmeas, so they included a handful of species across the 7 subgenera to compare to. What ended up happening was that they saw that the different subgenera of Aechmea were split by the other genera of Bromelioideae. Including one Aechmea that seems more closely related to Billbergia and Billbergiopsis than the other groups of Aechmea.

Cryptanthus and Orthophytum are closely aligned (although there is one Ortho that doesn't belong and might be its own thing). There is a "Nidularoid" group that includes Wittrockia and Edmundoa. And I think I mentioned in the other post a group of the Podaechmea combined with Ursulaea and Androlepis.
-andy

Oh, I forgot to mention that they also take into account flower and leaf shape/morphology and stuff when making their conclusions, so it isn't just genetic testing but a full suite of analysis. And they talk about the previous classifications, why they were made, etc. That is how they are drawing conclusions on how and at what point that specific traits (like CAM metabolism, tank habit, trichomes, etc) developed and how many times independently. There seems to be a lot of convergent evolution that makes it hard to work out relationships simply by physical appearance and structure.
-andy

Thank you Andy. I am now better informed, and all that you say is very interesting indeed.

Pleased to know a "full suite of analysis" is being employed. It is far too complicated and scientific for my limited brain to fathom, but the knowledge gained by such intense research will surely better the understanding of the whole family's origins and the various forms of evolution within it.

K :)