Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
stanofh

Big Red Brom...

What do you think? my first plunge into the big broms...and I think the leaf color should rosy up more in my climate..it was 90f today,hottest day of the year so far.Wouldnt you know it? a breeze made the bloom shake..hence a bit blurry.


{{gwi:459515}}


{{gwi:459517}}


{{gwi:459519}}

Comments (39)

  • rickta66
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Stan,

    Very nice, it looks a little like Vr.Highway Beauty Novar.

    Shame about the leaf burn, large broms rock - it looks like a good area to put him/her.

    Highway Beauty
    {{gwi:459521}}

    Rick

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys, for starters there is no plant named Vr. Highway Beauty 'Novar'. the non variegated form which is pictured here is possibly Vr. Highway. The variegated form shown is possibly Vr. Highway Beauty, if it is, it was a variegated sport from the original hybrid believed to be done in N.Z. in the 60's of Vr. Saundersii x Bituminosa, later named Vr. Highway, both of these parents have yellow to yellow/green flower spikes, so where did the pink come from ???, this is why I say possibly.
    Note: not to be confused with Vr. RoRo, which is Vr. Saundersii x Platynema & can be variegated or albo-marginated. Have a look at the flower spike on these cross's & see if any-one can tell me or see the difference between RoRo & Highway or Highway Beauty.

    Open for discussion

  • rickta66
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    pinkbroms,

    I can't tell the difference between RoRo and Highway Beauty unless there is someway to reference size in the picture; I believe that Highway Beauty is a larger plant than RoRo, my plant is around 70cm in diameter.

    Novar was a concept possibly proposed by Derek Butcher to cover non-variegated sports, see link below.

    Highway looks like an appropriate name; hopefully I'll only get variegated offsets and I won't have to decide which name to use.

    The photos on FCBS.org show Highway Beauty as having Pink spikes; I don't know what colour the flower spikes should be - I would love an explanation of the influence of seed/pollen parents on flower colour if you would like to share.

    Do you have an original Highway Beauty?

    Cheers,

    Rick

    Here is a link that might be useful: Novar naming

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys, Denis Cathcart of Tropiflora Nursery in the U.S. was the person who first coined the concept of 'Novar'.
    There are still some grey areas with this to be sorted.
    I'm glad you can't tell the diff. either Rick, the #'s are growing, how many more observant growers have we.
    Remember a previous discussion where some-one acknowledged they didn't look at the petal colour of Neo. Johannis before passing an oppinion & then said I now know to look closer. It's not petal colour this time though, but look closer, what is the diff. can any-one tell. Look @ mum, look @ dad, look @ the colours, understand & diagnose the parental names.
    I'm trying to get you to look & think & discuss, to give an answer from an alternative source which may help support the theory that is already being considered. Can any-body else see anything diff. between these plants.
    Rick, the ? is does any-body have a plant of the original hybrid of Vr. Highway from Murial Watermans collection. Positive I.D, not I think so. We want photo's from the collection if possible. This will tell us what Vr. Highway really looked like.
    I'd like to get some more Forum thoughts before we see if you agree with the observations we already have.
    Good start anyway Rick.

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Stan, Hi Rick, nice plants regardless of the names.

    Hi pinkbroms - some interesting points, and at your suggestion I've done a little research.

    Regarding Highway Beauty, the following note might be of interest, quoted from Bromeliad Society of South Australia :Bromeliad Gazette September/October 2005: Vol:29. Number:05 at www.bromeliad.org.au/news/SA2905:

    "A plant brought in by Adam called Vriesea Highway Beauty has a fascinating history if only because of its slowness to reproduce. Investigation has shown that a variegated plant called Vriesea bituminosa x saundersii was being grown in the USA in the 1970s and was thought to have come from Europe. Nobody bothered to give it a name because it was so slow. It had been in Queensland for some years before our very own Peter Huddy got an offset in around 2000. Some 3 years later he flowered the plant and decided it needed a proper Cultivar name. Knowing Peters sense of black humour it was no wonder that he called it Highway Beauty. If, by any chance it lost its variegation it could be called Highway and funnily enough this has since happened in New Zealand!"

    This also corresponds precisely with the entry in the BSI cultivar registry for Highway Beauty.

    If this information is correct then the clone named by Huddy in Australia is the real Highway Beauty, regardless of its parentage or the colours of its supposed parents. Looking at Huddy's photograph of the inflorescence of Highway Beauty in the fcbs photo index, the bracts are certainly reddish, which would correspond with the pictures above. However, the inflorescence of Huddy's plant also appears to be branched, which does not correspond to the photos above.

    Is the branching of the inflorescence of these plants variable - ie sometimes branched and sometimes not? I wouldn't know, but if it is, then I can't see anything there to separate Rick's plant from Highway Beauty.

    What its real parents are is a different question. Can it be possible for two parents of different species with yellow/green bracts to produce an offspring with red bracts? It is certainly possible from a general genetic viewpoint, but is that what actually can happen with these plants? Again, I wouldn't know, but if anyone does, it would be interesting to find out.

    A couple of other thoughts re Highway. It appears from the above sources that this name was first applied to a plant in New Zealand (as also mentioned by pinkbroms). As a cultivar name, it is only correctly applicable to that clone, regardless of that clone's origins. If this is the case, then it may have nothing to do with Highway Beauty at all. It may be a totally different plant and in reality it probably should be treated as such, unless there is direct evidence to indicate that the plant named Highway was indeed a non-variegated offset of exactly the same clone that Huddy named. It would be interesting to see if there is direct evidence of this relationship.

    Also, if Stan's plant is a non-variegated offset of the same clone that Rick has, and Rick's plant is indeed Highway Beauty, and if the New Zealand Highway was actually a different plant, then Stan's plant could be quite correctly called Highway Beauty Novar, while the name Highway would be incorrect.

    But then again, maybe Stan's plant is the same clone as the one named Highway in New Zealand. Or maybe it is a different clone altogether, and seeing we are talking about cultivar names, and these are really only correctly applicable to a specific clone ..... Hmmmm ........

    pinkbroms, I hope this helps.

    Cheers, Paul

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again pinkbroms, re para 6 in my note above, I just noticed that the inflorescence on Stan's plant is in fact branched, just like that of the plant that Huddy named Highway Beauty. I think all of my points still hold though, and particularly my questions regarding inheritance of bract colouration and branching of the inflorescence.

    Interested in your thoughts. Cheers, Paul

  • brom-nutter
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi all, just thought I would post some pic's of the plants being discussed.
    I'm no expert but these plants were purchased as named.
    They are very close, but there does seem to be very slight differences.

    Photo 1 & 2 side & top view - saundersii x bituminosa


    {{gwi:459524}}

    {{gwi:459525}}

    Photo 3 & 4 side & top view - saundersii x platynema

    {{gwi:459526}}

    {{gwi:459527}}

    Vriesea RoRo variegata

    {{gwi:459529}}

    Vriesea Highway Beauty albo marginate

    {{gwi:459531}}


    Cheers Richard

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Richard,

    Interesting to see those pics. I particularly like the saundersii x bituminosa (the non-variegated one) and the RoRo. Actually I had not really paid much attention to the non-variegated ones until this thread. Looking at the pics from Stan and yourself, they really are nice plants, just in a more subtle way. I might just have to get myself one! Thanks Stan, Rick and Richard for opening my eyes.

    I certainly don't make any claims to be an expert on these broms either - just making use of what info I could find to see if I could follow up on pinkbrom's suggestion. I got to the point in my little investigation where the more I found out, the less certain I was. I guess that's not unusual! I suppose it makes it pretty difficult to argue any case for identification strongly unless you can confirm a solid link from one plant to another, right back to the actual plant that had the name originally applied to it - and even then, there may have been a mutation somewhere during that history that means it may not really still be the same cultivar!

    Anyway, so much for the speculation - I just love the plants! For what its worth, I've included a couple of pics of the plant I bought a bit over a year ago as the variegated form of Highway Beauty, to go with the pics from Rick and Richard.

    {{gwi:459533}}

    {{gwi:459535}}

    Haven't seen it flower yet - I'll be interested to see what it does. Cheers, Paul

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys, records do indicate that plants came from the U.S,
    P.Huddy plants I believe came from the east coast of N.S.W.
    These would probably be from the U.S import stock.

    N.Z considers they originated there from Murial Waterman.

    Exact origins are sketchy, but as Paul points out the name sticks with the cultivar given that name by Peter Huddy. However I have seen so many different plants named Vr. Highway Beauty I needed to look deeper.

    Branching is purely cultural, sometimes it branches, sometimes not, maybe more feed more branches.

    Generally as far as I know yellow x yellow gives yellow, red x red gives red, yellow x red gives red/oranges, yellow x blue gives dirty brownish colour petals, yellow x yellow doesn't normally give red.

    The original hybrid I believe was a grey/green plant not variegated, then sported a variegated offset, a 'beauty'.
    Consider: the variegated sport gives a plain grey/green offset, does this get called 'novar', not forgetting it has only reverted back to the original hybrid form of grey/green who is not a 'novar'.
    The naming of these plants was done in the old format before 'novar', therefore any pups that revert to grey/green not variegated just become Vr. Highway again.

    Richard: your plants look like they may be named the right way round, however I have seen your form of Vr. Highway Beauty called Vr. RoRo & vice versa with the other, which has made all this very confusing, but I hope by the end of all this we will be on the way to sorting them properly & why I started looking more closely at them both.

    I agree with you Paul it got more & more confusing as the names kept getting changed around, it got that way that I wasn't sure which was Vr. Highway Beauty or RoRo anymore, I have 5 different forms & I enjoy them all.

    However I do like my plants named correctly, so I looked for a difference to be able to tell them apart. Now I am certainly NO expert either thats why I ask questions & observe. Thats why I thought I would ask you Guys when the chance came up & as we can see we all seem to have the same problem.

    Quotes from J.B.S of New Zealand Vol.48 #11 Nov. 2008
    The indication from N.Z. is that maybe Vr. Platynema var. Platynema was used as it has bright pinkish-red floral bracts unlike Vr. platynema var. variegata, a night flowering plant which has rather colourless flowers.
    At this stage I began to wonder why the flower on our 'Highway Beauty' was bright pinkish red. Vr. saundersii has yellow floral bracts & petals & bituminosa has green or pale yellowish flowers like most night flowering Vrieseas. At this time I am still trying to find a 'Highway Beauty' with a flower that is not red, & until I do, I am thinking that all our Vr. Highway Beauty should be named Vr. RoRo. I remain to be convinced that 'Highway Beauty' actually exists, at least in N.Z.
    Article by Peter Waters.

    The best I have been given, as I said at the start look at the parents. The main one being Vr. Bituminosa. We've looked at the others for colour & I think the N.Zers may have an answer there. Now look at Vr. Bituminosa which got it's name for the gooey type substance it exudes from the flowers etc. If you have this clear/amber gooey stuff dripping from flower to flower then one of the parents was probably Vr. Bituminosa which then gives you Vr. Highway & on to Vr. Highway Beauty. If your flower spike is clean then you probably have Vr. RoRo.

    So what do you think Guys does this sound reasonable or maybe its not worth worrying about & just love your BABIES for what they are BEAUTIFUL.

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again pinkbroms,

    Good points again, but I really don't think it is that complicated - at least as far as Highway Beauty is concerned. Highway Beauty is a cultivar name. If Huddy gave it to a plant with pink bracts, then Highway Beauty has pink bracts. This plant may not be saundersii x bituminosa, but that does not matter - it is still Highway Beauty, because that is what Huddy named it.

    If Highway Beauty was a grex name (ie the name for the whole of the saundersii x bituminosa hybrid group), it would be different and parentage would matter. But it isn't, its a cultivar name applied to a specific plant, and parentage is irrelevant as far as the name is concerned.

    From your points above, it does seem that the plants we know as Highway Beauty may in fact not be saundersii x bituminosa. Maybe they are saundersii x platynema, or maybe they are something else, but that doesn't matter as far as the name is concerned - they are still Highway Beauty if they are the same clone that Huddy named Highway Beauty. Similarly, if they are the same clone that Huddy named RoRo, also with pink bracts, then they are RoRo, again regardless of parentage.

    The challenge here seems to be in telling them apart. The best way to tackle this would be to find out from Huddy's plants - if this is still possible - because he named both of them and the actual plants he named are really the only ones that are relevant to sorting this out. Come on guys - are there any South Aussies out there that can help us with this?


    The real complication comes with Highway. If the plant in NZ to which the name Highway was first given was in fact a saundersii x bituminosa, and if Highway Beauty is in fact not saundersii x bituminosa as seems to be suggested, then Highway would have nothing to do with Highway Beauty, and it would be incorrect to apply it to a plant of Highway Beauty that had reverted to non-variegated form.

    Again, the best way to sort this out would be to go back to the actual plant that was first given the name. Do any of our Kiwi friends have a plant that they can reliably trace back to the one that was first given the Highway name? Does it have yellow bracts? pink bracts? How does it compare to the plants we have been talking about? Was the plant that was given the name known definitely to be a stripe-less pup from a variegated plant? or had it always been stripe-less as far as is known?

    Interested to find out. Cheers, Paul

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Paul & Others

    We know the names must stay as you indicate. The problem is which plant is getting the right name ie: gooey stuff dripping from one flower to the next probably has Vr. bituminosa as a parent & therefore is probably Vr. Highway & then Vr. Highway Beauty as the sport. U.D considers this as a way to possibly tell them apart & he is from the land of Huddy.
    It seems as though the naming may have got mixed up at some stage as nobody seems 100% sure as to which is really which.
    Cultivar names can be changed providing there is proof there is a need to, we're looking at parents though not whether there is a need to change names.
    Insufficient records as to exactly which way the original Vr. Highway travelled after birth, although we do know both crosses came from the U.S. to Aus. but we don't know for sure where the U.S. got them. N.Zers don't seem to be able to give us an indication as to the whereabouts of the original offspring, otherwise they wouldn't be asking these ??'s themselves as indicated: Peter Waters article.

    The original hybrid was a stripe-less plant, hence the name Highway, this sported a variegated plant which was said to be a beauty, hence Highway Beauty. That's as I read of it, sounds fair.

    Anyway Paul it seems as though we are picking up on the same train of thought now, all we can do is hope others are following also so we get people looking for gooey or not gooey. Also if anybody gets a plant with a greenish spike as opposed to red, please let the Forum know.

    Also interested to find out: Cheers to Paul from Pinkbroms

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again pinkbroms,

    Go for it! Anything you can find out would be terrific - the more the merrier!

    A new thread should probably be started for whatever else comes up, though (sorry Stan!). What do you think?

    All the best and cheers, Paul

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys
    Totally agree, new thread next time somebody has a flower spike of interest.
    Some very very nice plants shown here though, congrats Guys
    Great chat, although what did Stan make of it,as it was his Gig.
    Stan, I would tag your plant as Vr. Highway for now with a notation of: ??? RoRo -- Forum, on the reverse side of your label.

    Good growing to Stan, Rick & Paul with thanks from Pinkbroms.

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Just taking it all in.The pot simply had in felt pen the name Big Red. It's nice to read that it isnt just another Brom,but has an interesting history.
    What are the odds it might sprout a variegated pup?..or the pups future pup sprouts variegated?
    btw,Any idea on cold tolerance? the numerous New Zealand references sounds promising.

  • splinter1804
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi everyone

    I've just been sitting back taking all of this most interesting discussion in.

    I don't have either plant, but while reading all of the info. from your detective work, the thought crossed my mind that maybe contacting Uncle Derek could shed some more light on the subject.

    Aw well, just a thought.

    All the best, Nev.

  • devo_2006
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ive been away for a few days, & have just managed to catch up with the recent posts.

    Here is a copy of the full article on Vriesea Highway Beauty / RoRo taken from our Nov 08 Bromeliad Journal & posted with the permission of the author Peter Waters. It clarifies the opinion on these plants here in NZ.

    {{gwi:459537}}

  • kerry_t_australia
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi all,

    I agree with Nev that this has been a very interesting discussion. The only points I can add are:

    1. According to my written records, the albo-marginated form was sold to me several years ago by John Buchanan (northern NSW, Australia) with the formula name of Vr. platynema x saundersii (albomarginated). I also grow the variegated form, with identical inflorescence i.e. red bracts, yellow flowers, sometimes single spiked, and sometimes branched.

    2. I also purchased a non-variegated form with the formula label Vr. bituminosa x saundersii. I suspect that name is a furphy.

    3. I have grown each of the three species parents in question, and have found Vr. saundersii and bituminosa more sensitive to extremes of cold than platynema var. platynema. Considering all of my forms of the supposed Highway/Highway Beauty/Ro Ro sailed through winter 07 without a blemish, this does suggest to me that platynema was involved in the parentage, rather than bituminosa - as well as the red floral bracts influence. I have flowered the supposed bituminosa x saundersii, but don't recall the bract and flower colours. Re gooey stuff - good point Pinkbroms. However, I have noticed the platynema inflorescences also exude a gooey substance, albeit probably less than bituminosa. I am still waiting for my slow-poke bituminosa to flower.

    4. Sue Holcombe of northern Qld has sold seedlings of Vr. platynema x saundersii (variegated), with most (if not all?) of them being non-variegated, and looking just like Stan's original posted plant. I assume the seed was from a self-pollinated plant.

    5. No-one has mentioned that both the albomarginated and variegated forms are very unstable in their variegation. If I'm lucky, I might get one out of three vegetative offsets with good variegation. Sometimes the variegation becomes stronger as the offsets develop, but usually they remain non or weakly variegated. I've had a couple with albo-margination on only one side of each leaf - which is quite attractive.

    6. One more observation - the non-variegated ones are faster growing, and will mature and flower well before any the same age with variegation or albo-margination.

    Thanks for the latest info from N.Z., Devo. And great rationale and use of research there Paul and Pinkbroms.
    From all your above theories and info, I'm inclined to change my labels of all the variegated and albo-marginated forms to Vr. Ro Ro, and leave the non-variegated forms under formula of platynema x saundersii.

    Cheers,
    Kerry

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys
    Stan: it is quite likely at any time that variegation may come back, this is why we use 'novar' on reverted variegates to indicate that this plant was variegated once. However as discussed for the late comers, the orig. plant was not var. & had a name so in this case reverts go back to the original naming of Vr. Highway. (the old system)

    Nev: U.D has been mentioned, as he has been in this discussion for quite a few years now, you will get more from U.D later.

    Devo: thanks for printing that article in full for me, as I am only able to type, therefore I only did the short extract from it.However would you like to go back a couple of years for me & print the first article that got this discussion going years ago.

    J.B.S of New Zealand
    Sept. 2002 Vol. 42 #9
    Page 6 -- From the Registrar -- Gerry Stansfield.
    with Thanks to N.Z. to allow us to reprint

    As you will see this is not a recent discussion it has been an ongoing one for years, just that it stops & starts, nobody wants to make a decision as there are no records to fall back on, so it is only all guess work & observation, Maybe one of you could re-do the crosses again & check the results in 8-10 yrs for us.

    Kerry: are plants still available from this source.
    Yes as we have said it does look like a furphy, but as U.D says the gooey stuff is the only indicator we have that it may be right. I still think FURPHY.

    This is where the problem is with the naming as the name was given to indicate Bituminosa as a parent: Bituminosa = bitumin (gooey stuff) = highway surfacing material = the name Vr. Highway, all in the N.Z article of 2002.

    Self set seed from these plants becomes an F.2 if a controlled pollination was done, if not, they should be (plat. x saund.)x ???self. However these plants do tend to self pollinate as all platynema's & saundersii do.
    Paul, maybe you could clarify this one.

    Thank you Kerry: this was one of my waiting to see if anybody was being observant points. Vr. Highway does tend to revert where-as Vr. RoRo seems to be very stable, at least in my collection it is, so I have used this as another reasonable indicator as to which is which.

    Growing quicker is due to a greater amount of chlorophyl in the leaves which gives more food production.

    Hey Paul I think they have caught on

    Thanks Guys, Cheers Paul from Pinkbroms.

    P.S Paul, I didn't think it would stop there.

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Just yesterday,the bloom got drippy.I was going to say AHA! more evidence,but since it's now a matter of how much drippiness and since I have no way to compare-back to square one in a way. I think the saundersii x platynema in the photos looks identical to mine. You know that day I bought this big red they had another " big red" that to my eye wasn't exactly the same. It's coloration was smoother like s x bituminosa. Only add some faint pink tips to the leaves-and no pups,slightly smaller overall. The bloom also looked identical,but a bit smaller. So I went with the larger plant with a good sized pup(you can't see it in my photo's)and a more branched infloresence.
    The price-$34 was about half what a plain Jane, green Alcanteria would sell for here.

  • rickta66
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hello all,

    My Vriesea has produced three out of three lovely varigated pups; I don't know what to call it, I started with RoRo changed to Highway Beauty now I might sit on the fence for a while.

    My seed pods are starting to harden off, whatever the parents are is it likely to produce any varigated seedlings or decent looking plants?

    The photo of Vr.Zelia Stoddart on FCBS is supposedly a cultivar of saundersii and appears to have green/yellow bracts.

    Rick

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Rick
    I would leave the tag as you got it as an original reference point, write FORUM on the back of the label to remind you of this discussion. Print this Forum off & file for future reference. Keep notes & keep us informed.

    The lesson we're learning here is to look carefully at a plant, rather than a glancing thought, of it looks like, now it should be, it looks like because ---

    Whether you will get variegated seedlings or decent plants, who knows, only one way to find out.

    Vr. Zelia Stoddart was a variegated seedling from a wild collected plant of Vr. saundersii, not related to this discussion as it's references are from 1999 onwards. We're back in the 60's. Good homework anyway, it's all worth looking at.

    Pinkbroms

  • splinter1804
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi all - I know I said previously that I didn't have either plant but when I looked again I found one very similar with the name Vr. bituminosa x saundersii so maybe I do.

    It hasn't flowered yet so I can't check the inflorescence or the flower colour nor the "gooey stuff"

    My plant though is only 48cm in diameter and to the best of my knowledge it is now the same size as the mother it came from so maybe it's not from the same stable as the ones in the discussion.

    What size are the plants in this discussion, I know it started out as 'Big Red Brom' and Rick said his plant was 70cm in diameter, but is this the general size we are discussing?

    Pinkbrom speaks of a hybrid beleived to come from NZ in the '60's of saundersii x bituminosa in his 1st post on Apr 21.

    Paul in his post of 22nd Apr has added a quote from an article in the Sept/Oct 2005 S.A. Brom. Gazette which names the plant as bituminosa x saundersii which is a reverse of the N.Z. cross mentioned above by pinkbroms.

    Does this make a difference to the outcome of the resulting seedlings and are they discussing the same plants?

    Anyway, just to put my "two bobs worth" in, below are the pic's of the plant I have - Vr. bituminosa x saundersii

    {{gwi:459539}}

    {{gwi:459541}}

    {{gwi:459543}}

    The questions continue ...................

    All the best, Nev.

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Nev.

    My plants vary from 500mm to 700mm on average, though I do have one form that grows to 950mm on average.

    The purists say who's on top & who's on the bottom does make a difference but others say it doesn't matter. By the old system it didn't matter which way round the parents were written on the tag, these days, 'the new system, since 1995' says we must write the seed parent first on the label, followed by the pollen parent. As the group we're discussing are an old group the switch on the label has happened, sometimes inadvertantly, parentage is shown both ways in my 1984 Checklist. In your case leave as they are & follow previous adv. to Rick.

    Nice plants which ever way the label is written, they're all the same.

    Pinkbroms

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I just measured mine as 24"(604mm) wide and 17"(432mm) tall.

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again everyone - nothing like a bit of healthy discussion!

    pinkbroms, I've been trying really hard not to, but I just have to stick my oar in again.

    First point: re your comment just above that "The purists say who's on top & who's on the bottom does make a difference" - it is not the purists who say this - it is an extremely extensive body of scientific theory, hard scientific evidence and practical results by a huge number of people. A classic example of this would be variegation. Many instances of variegation result from the uneven distribution of un-pigmented chloroplasts (the "organelles" inside a plant cell that normally contain chlorophyl) during the early stages of cell division in a plant embryo. The chloroplasts in a plant cell contain their own DNA, they come ONLY from the seed parent, and as a result, some characteristics of a plant associated with the chloroplasts, including instances of variegation, may be influenced only by the seed parent. If you do a bit of a search through this forum you will find plenty of very well-founded threads dealing with variegation in hybridising and they note the importance of using the correct parents if you want to get any worthwhile results, for precisely this reason. This is just one example that has been pretty well researched, and if you don't believe me, do a google on variegation and wade through some of the scientific literature that comes up. Also, there are plenty of other cell organelles with their own genetic material that come from the seed parent only, and who knows what affect they have? If you know which plant was the seed parent, keep good records of it - it may well be very important. If you don't know with absolute certainty, don't make it up.

    Second point: you have continued with your line of reasoning to use the supposed parentage of a plant to establish the validity of a cultivar name.

    Could I ask you to refer to the rules for the naming of cultivars specified in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants , under which the BSI operates as the official International Registration Authority for bromeliads. Ive given myself a bit of a refresher on these rules since this thread started, and I can recommend this to others who are interested in following this. A good place to start is Cultivar Corner on the BSI website, then google up the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants to find a bit more detail. I have not been able to find anywhere on the web that you can view the full code unless you part with a heap of money (which I havent done), but pages 39-40 of the Economic Botany text at the following URL seem to give a pretty succinct summary of relevant points.
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DH1mnIAttpMC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22definition+of+cultivar%22&source=bl&ots=k8pAAJUx2b&sig=z2nFnO6kczAho1revBcWg-epvOQ&hl=en&ei=52r3Sf3iKcGAkQXz7t3eCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA39,M1

    As I understand the Code, a cultivar name is only correctly applicable to a specific clone, and the parentage of the clone does not, and should not, have any bearing at all on the validity of the cultivar name. There are exception to this, all based on situations where a cultivar name is tied necessarily to the identity of the specified parent or parents, in situations where the seed-based offspring of the specified parent/s are identical for all practical purposes. A classic example of this would be food crops that are grown from seed that is produced for each planting as the same, repeated F1 hybrid. However, given the variability we all routinely encounter in bromeliads, including some of the points raised in this thread, I cant see how bromeliads would qualify for this exception.

    As I understand it, the basic logic behind these rules is that in the vast majority of cases, it is essentially impossible to establish the parentage of a seed-grown plant with absolute certainty by looking at the characteristics the plants display. For example, a seed-grown plant can quite easily look different in some respects to anything displayed by the parents because there was a mutation of one or more genes during the reproductive process, or maybe because the combination of genes from the two parents resulted in characteristics that neither of them displayed. The study of genetics is just seething with these sorts of occurrences after all, this is to a large extent what the hybridisation and line-breeding of cultivated plants is all about. Of course, there is also the situation where the identification of parents has been confused. This confusion could be right from the very start, by undetected pollination from an unknown source by busy insects or other pollinators. Or it may have happened somewhere during the history of the plant, via the dreaded mis-placed label. Or maybe one (or maybe both) of the parents were incorrectly identified. Or maybe a parent seemed to be correctly identified, but it was actually a hybrid that had some non-standard genes buried away. In the context of the plants we have been discussing, how about something like a supposed V. bituminosa parent with that actually had some V. philippo-coburgii (lots of nice red bracts) several generations back. Or maybe a great plant turns up out of the blue and it is a simple matter of no-one having kept accurate, systematic records of where it came from. Or lots of other things Im sure other people can add a lot more items to this list.

    So, what has this got do with reasons for not tying cultivar names to the identity of parents? Well, what happens is that someone will uncover some information that indicates that the parents of a cultivar are not what people generally thought they were. The development of knowledge being what it is, this will give someone else (or maybe the same person), a new starting point for developing the knowledge of the parentage further. They do a good job of investigation and lo and behold, they find good evidence to indicate that the parentage of the plant is different from what it was thought to be last time, and the time before. The development of knowledge being what it is, this will give someone else (or maybe the same person), a new starting point for developing the knowledge of the parentage further. They do a good job of investigation and lo and behold, they find good evidence to indicate that the parentage of the plant is different from what it was thought to be last time, and the time before, and the time before that. The development of knowledge being what it is, this will give someone else ....... and so on, and so on, continuing indefinitely, since it is virtually impossible to be absolutely certain of parentage, for all the sorts of reasons covered above.

    Imagine what would happen to the cultivar names if they were changed every time someone came up with an advance in the knowledge of the parents. If you had a reasonable number of broms in your collection, you would have to employ a full time personal assistant to keep track of all the changes and update your labels, plus carry around a portable computer that you could use to look up name changes every time you talked to someone. And that is just looking at the cultivar names. While all of this is happening, professional scientists (taxonomists) are developing the knowledge of how the different species and genera and higher groupings are related, and this understanding can go through a lot of changes as new technologies for investigation are developed. This frequently results in some species being combined together, and other species being split up into new species, or even placed in different or new genera. Added into this mix, some scientists will tend to group variable individuals into a single species ("clumpers"), and others will tend to assign them to different species ("splitters"), both with good but different justifications. This all means that the identities of parent plants change, even if identification of parents was correct given the state of knowledge at the time a cross was made. What would happen to cultivar names then, if you link them to the identity of the parents? The answer is simple total chaos and confusion.

    That, as far as I can see, is the reason why the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants does not base the validity of cultivar names on the identity of parents except in very special cases. It is designed very specifically to prevent precisely the sort of confusion and ongoing debate about the validity of names that we have been involved with in this thread.

    When a cultivar name is assigned to a plant you are using it, figuratively speaking, to "put a peg in the ground", so you can step back and say "that thing there is what I have. Even if there is uncertainty about the parents, that is exactly what I have", or "that is exactly what I have used in my breeding program". In this situation, the focus for investigating the validity of cultivar names is on the differences between the cultivars themselves, not on the supposed identity of the parents.

    For V. Highway Beauty, Highway, RoRo, etc that we have been discussing, comparison of characteristics with supposed parents is not just a matter of red bracts, it is a matter of red herrings. It directly undermines the intent of the Code of Nomenclature and results inevitably in the endless uncertainty that appears to have typified the discussion as it has progressed over the years. The assignment of a cultivar name is deliberately intended to function as a circuit-breaker, to prevent this infinite loop of speculation continuing and provide a known reference point to move forward.

    In my view, this does not by any means reduce the value of developing a better understanding of the plants we love so much, including getting a better understanding of possible parents and their effects. Far from it. This sort of knowledge should be treated as extremely useful, as well as just plain, downright interesting, but not for determining the validity of cultivar names.

    Im sorry that took a while to get through. I looked around to see if I could find a source somewhere that I could point people towards, but I couldnt find anything that tied all of the points together in one short summary.

    I should also note that the BSI registrar is the authority to adjudicate on these sorts of issues, including where rules apply rigidly and where they may be bent for bromeliads due to specific circumstances. I think it would be a very good idea for someone to get some input from the registrar before too much more is done by way of recommending what cultivar names people should apply to their plants. Maybe there is a nice little official project that someone could undertake to help clear this up, following the Code. Maybe someone is already part-way down that path?

    I hope this has been of interest, and look forward to a bit more lively discussion!
    Cheers, Paul

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys

    Paul, nobody has been trying to change the name but to have the name on the right plant in our collections. As it has been pointed out very few people if any are able to distinguish between Vr. Highway Beauty & Vr. RoRo even when in flower. For many years various published photo's seem to be contradictory to each other. Note the photo of Vr. Highway has been removed from f.c.b.s as incorrect, I haven't been able to speak to U.D on that decision yet. When disgussing these plants with U.D one day about how to distinguish one from the other it was U.D who suggested the gooey stuff as the best indicator as to which plant has Vr. bituminosa as a parent, therefore that is the plant most likely to be Vr. Highway etc.
    I had already indicated that U.D had been in on discussions re: idenity of these 2 plants.
    What we're after is if anybody else worked out a significant distinguishing feature that would help make it easy to seperate these plants, lets say if you lost your labels, is there a distinguishing feature you could base a decision on as to which plant is which. So far U.D has offered one reasonable answer. Kerry & myself have offered a second, unstable variegation in Vr. Highway Beauty.
    How would you decide, everybody else has said they can't tell the diff. between the 2.
    Some of us querie where the red bracts came from, maybe the Vr. bituminosa used in the hybrid might have had something else in it way back in its history, therefore was actually a hybrid itself & this has surfaced again as red bracts, all supposition though.

    This has been a good discussion, just hope others are gaining knowledge out of it also.

    Pinkbroms

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi pinkbroms, re your question "How would you decide, everybody else has said they can't tell the diff. between the 2" - it's an excellent question and worth putting a good bit of effort into. I'd really like to know what is going on there myself, because as much as I like my own Highway Beauty, a mate has a different Highway Beauty that I like even better! And its first pup looks exactly like the parent, so maybe it has nice stable variegation as well as a bit more really nice pink spotting on top.

    How would I go about answering your question?

    Step 1. Have a look at enough plants to get some idea of the range of variations in the characteristics that seem to be important.

    Step 2. Document the variations seen in each plant, looking to see if the plants fall into any groups where the plants in a group are similar, but different to plants in the other groups.

    Step 3. Try to get hold of the plants that were originally given the names. In the case of Highway Beauty and RoRo, it wasn't that long ago, so maybe someone associated with Huddy could still have them. If not, try to get hold of the original descriptions in as much detail as possible.

    Step 4. Use Huddy's plants or information about them (not their supposed parents, the plants themselves) to assign the names to the groups of plants that give the best match. Record the differences that were used to distinguish between the groups and publish this in the appropriate place - I assume the BSI cultivar registry, so that it will be there as a reference.

    It might become apparent after looking at enough plants that the extreme variations might be different, but when you look at all the ones in between, they all just merge together into one continuous range of variation. If this happens, then I would suggest that there is no point in giving different names, because you can never work out where one stops and another starts, so the best thing to do is to put them all under one name to avoid confusion (I guess I tend to be a "lumper").

    If this turns out to be the case, then the name that should be used is RoRo, because (as I understand it from the above discussion) it is the name that was applied first. This is the principle of "precedence", one of the key principles of the Code, which states that the name that was first in use is the one that should be applied when it has been established that more than one name has been applied to the same plant / group of plants. The purpose of the principle of precedence is specifically to avoid confusion over which name should be used.

    These steps are pretty much the ones a professional taxonomist would take - it would involve a bit of work, but you'd have a good chance of getting a useful result out of it. Interesting that Kerry has headed in the RoRo direction - I'd love to know if this is the sort of path she has taken to get there.

    I reckon it would be a great little project to sort this out, especially as I get the impression from people's comments here that some of the clones out there seem to be much more stable than others. Wouldn't it be nice if you could know which one you were getting?

    Hope this helps. Cheers, Paul

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys
    Well put Paul & if everybody following this thread can follow those steps we will certainly get some answers & maybe a solution to settle who is who. With everybody heading in the same direction it will make getting a result easier.

    Thanks Guys, Cheers Paul

    Thanks Stan, Big Red Brom. I bet you didn't expect to open a Big Can of Worms like this, thoroughly enjoyed the chat, hope we hear more in the future.

    Pinkbroms

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi pinkbroms, hi everyone else reading this.

    It is just so great to see people getting really interested and involved and exchanging experience and information in their shared passion, so going through this thread, I have been really worried that I am "raining on the parade". I hope that I haven't. I hope that there will be a lot more enthusiasm and investigation, so we can all find out a whole lot more!

    All the best. Cheers, Paul

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Not so Paul. I didn't get that feeling at all.
    And it all started with your basic, " Look at the pretty plant I bought"-lol.

  • kerry_t_australia
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi all,
    This whole thread has definitely triggered food for thought.
    Paul, you have raised excellent points and observations on many levels - much appreciated, as has Pinkbroms and all other contributors.
    Yes, the principle of precedence has swayed my opinion, even though that principle has had to be ignored with certain reclassification of nomenclature after further investigations and prescribed descriptive codes of overall genera, and specific species. As you say Paul, it is a different matter for named hybrids, and it makes sense to me that the first hybrid name should still apply, regardless of its parents. Your reference to "red herrings" is pertinent, and we all know how many red herrings are out there - multiplying at an alarming rate, and perpetuated by some sellers either out of ignorance, or from the want of a quick buck by giving a plant a more desirable label. I have even seen the variegated form of this plant sold as V. Slow Lane!

    As no-one has been able to show us a plant with any obvious characteristics influenced by a supposed bituminosa parent - with broad leaves, dark leaf tips, and greenish floral bracts and pale flower petals (with lots of "goo"), the questionable parentage quoted for Highway Beauty is still an issue for me.

    RoRo was named and registered before Highway and Highway Beauty. RoRo's quoted parents are less questionable then Highway/Highway Beauty. No-one can tell the difference between the variegated and albomarginated forms of the named RoRo and Highway Beauty, and their inflorescences appear identical, whether they are single-spiked or branched - and the same of their off-spring, variegated or not. Information is lacking as to who actually hybridised this plant, or who grew the original sport. Therefore, I agree with Peter Waters that all the variegated and albomarginated forms should be referred to as RoRo, in Australia as well as N.Z. - that is, as Paul suggested, until someone partakes in a comprehensive study which proves otherwise. I am unsure what to call my non-variegated forms - if the rule of precedence is applied, then I suppose it should be called Highway, but not if it is a non-variegated offset of RoRo? (dare I suggest RoRo Novar?)
    I will still keep that big question mark on my labels!

    Cheers,
    Kerry

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again everyone,

    Kerry, great to get your feedback - that's done it for me. I'm off right now to write out some RoRo labels. Shame to loose "Highway Beauty" though - such a good name. But I guess there is always "RoRo Ro your boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily ..... ngaaaarrgh! I blame the flu medication!

    Cheers, Paul

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago
  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys
    Stan, good to see somebody is following the 1-4 steps. This latest photo appears to be the spike in the very first photo in this discussion, on the non variegated plant. If so, I would tag that plant as Vr. Highway with a notation (gooey stuff) & to this forum ( Big Red Brom.)

    Paul, you've just disappointed me, after all your discussion on nomenclature, who can & who can't change names, a step by step method of deciding who is who, so as to be able to assign the names accordingly, it appears you have now just decided to go against all of this & change your name tags anyway. I thought you were going to do some observations of your plants first.
    I have been having these sorts of discussions, making observations, more discussions now, for about 10yrs & still the discussions with you guys go on to make sure the info is correct before a decision is made in the right channels, not done overnight.

    As far as I am aware, since U.D retired the new International Cultivar Registrar is Geoff Lawn of Perth.

    This was to be a discussion not a decision, don't throw Highway or Highway Beauty away yet. Follow the discussion & tag plants as has been suggested, goo or no goo & assign the names accordingly, following your 1-4 steps.

    So far I haven't had a non-variegated off-set of Vr. RoRo (no goo) yet, however after steps 1-4 have been completed & with my own observations to date, I would probably consider Vr. RoRo 'novar' would be appropriate, as to date there is no non-variegated form of Vr. RoRo named as far as I am aware.

    Pinkbroms

  • paul_t23
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi again pinkbroms. Please re-read the postings from Kerry and myself and note the following:

    1. I have not gone against anything I have said at all. I have in fact followed my steps precisely: based on information on the variability and overlap of the characteristics of the plants as re-iterated by Kerry in her last posting, re-inforcing the comments of other correspondents previously, it appears that it is impossible to split this group up into different cultivars that can be distinguished reliably. Note that I am quite happy to accept others' extensive experience and evidence for this - but also please note that this is what I am doing. I am not making some arbitrary "overnight" decision as you imply. If this is the case and the cultivars can't be distinguished reliably, then the name RoRo would take precedence for this group of plants until there is solid evidence to the contrary.

    2. My labelling of my own plants reflects this, but I have made no recommendation as to what anyone else should do with the names of their plants or their labels, and I was not aware that I had made any decision or suggestion that terminated the discussion.

    3. I remain completely open to any new information that anyone can provide and will post anything that I come across myself.

    All the best. Cheers, Paul

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    How is this?.. For Highway that has goo,maybe name it "Highway Tears"..an idea that came to me looking at my(soon) next post- my Billbergia Nutans variegata, and then reading about what "Queen's Tears " alludes too.

    btw,Dave's Garden has NO LISTING on B.nutans variegata???..well,I'm a gonna change that, pilgrim...

  • bromaholic
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This the greatest thread - well done and thanks to all you smart folks..

    This was sold to me as Vri Highway; yes??
    {{gwi:459545}}

  • pinkbroms
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Guys

    NO Stan, we have already explained how Vr. Highway got its name & that ain't gonna change. Tears & all.

    Thanks Bromaholic, it has been really good, hope others feel the same, I think we have gained a bit from this discussion.
    Can't tell you anything about your plant untill it flowers.

    Pinkbroms

  • stanofh 10a Hayward,Ca S.F. bay area
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well,harumph,let the masses decide!

    Brom,very close-but that sheen isn't a strong trait of Highway. Could be the lighting.

Sponsored
Ed Ball Landscape Architecture
Average rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars30 Reviews
Exquisite Landscape Architecture & Design - “Best of Houzz" Winner
More Discussions