Hi Nev,
If you read "Uncle Derek's" remarks they are quite enlightening. The "x" in front of the name just denotes that the "species" is actually a natural hybrid. I think Uncle Derek's expiriment of planting out the seeds from N. xcorreia-araujei pretty well proves the case. You'll often find this designation with other listed natural hybrids- Tillandsia xfloridana- for instance. There doesn't seem to be a well established practice for listing plants that way. However, sometimes I think that it's a matter of proving that a wild collected plant is in fact a natural hybrid.

Hope this helps,

Paul

What the x means depends on where it is, Nev. In a bigeneric, you'll find it in front of the nothogenus (the new genus designation made of combining parts of the 2 parent genera), i.e. xNeophytum, xGuzvriesea or xPortemea. As Paul has explained, if a described species is later considered to be a natural hybrid, you'll find the x in front of the species name.

As far as whether or not N. correia-araujoi IS, in fact, a natural hybrid, it seems the jury is still out. Harry Luther initially told me that it was most likely a natural hybrid of johannis and marmorata, but recently he has changed his tune and now declares it to be just another form of johannis. I'm not convinced. As Uncle Derek's article describes, I crossed 2 clones of c-a and grew them out. Some came out marmorated and others looked more like johannis, pretty much what you would expect from an F2 generation of a primary hybrid. I asked Harry if this didn't prove its hybrid origin, but his response was no, it just proves it is a variable species. Not content with this explanation, I recently pollinated my marmorata with johannis and vice versa just to test it out. If the progeny look and act like correia-araujoi, I will then present my case to Harry and see what he has to say about it! Of course if he's right, that might explain the disparity between the plants in the photos, rather than it being a case of mislabelling (my current opinion).

As to why my photo doesn't have the x while some of the others do, I'm not sure. I don't usually use it when writing, but that's just a lazy habit like not putting the single quotes around a cultivar name. I don't think that's the real reason, though. That was an old 35mm photo that I sent to Derek years ago, before there ever even WAS an FCBS, so its appearance on the site is something I had nothing to do with. If he thinks it's a natural hybrid then there should be an x there, whether I put one there or not. I suppose it could reflect how he felt about it at the time each picture was posted, or it may be just basic human inconsistancy, who knows?

Hi Lisa and Paul,

Thanks for clearing that up for me, all the best, Nev.

Hi guys. Nev, you keep asking really neat questions on subjects with explosive potential! Interesting stuff.

Lisa, love the experiment! Wouldn't it be fun if your crosses produce all three species - johannis, marmorata and correia-araujoi? I wonder where the x would go then? Dying to hear the results when they come through.

Just love this stuff. Cheers, Paul

Careful there, Paul, you'll make Nev nervous. He doesn't like it when we pick up one of his topics and run away with it!

BTW, there's too many Pauls on the forum, I may have to call you Paul #1 and Paul #2 (you can arm-wrestle over who gets to be which). I'm with you, though, I think this stuff is fun to talk about. Of course anyone who doesn't think so is free to click the "back" button at any time.

As to the experiments, of course you can't actually "produce a species" from a cross, but you can get offspring that lean heavily towards one or the other parent, particularly in an F2 grex. None of the offspring of that early experiment looked like straight marmorata, though. I'm not sure if that is significant or not, since it may be more of a size issue than anything else. They were all large plants and about 3/4 of them were marmorated to some degree or other. The ones that weren't didn't look *exactly* like johannis, or at least not quite like the clone of it that I have (could be Fairchild? Not sure), but they were definitely very johanissy.

Still, if c-a were a true species, you'd expect a lot more uniformity from a self-crossing. Okay, it wasn't exactly a selfing because c-a is self-incompatible, but both clones were IDed by Harry as c-a, so that's the next best thing, right? Those are the two clones in the photo.

The current experiment is to see if I can create a correia-araujoi out of johannis and marmorata, which is a slightly different proposition than sifting the parents out of a presumed hybrid. It will be at least a couple of years before I see the results of this one (assuming they take), but I'll keep you posted.

I have another similar experiment in progress to see if I can recreate 'French's Cruenta'. This is another cv. that Harry feels is probably just a form of johannis, and as usual, I'm not convinced. My theory is that it's a natural hybrid of johannis and spectabilis, but so far I haven't succeeded in convincing anyone else of that. Hence the mad scientist routine! I'll let you know how that one comes out too.

Hi Lisa,

I think it's great for you to do these crosses to satisfy yourself and the rest of us one way or the other. Like any other cross, I think the real excitement is in the anticipation of the results.

All the best, Nev.

It certainly is Nev! My evil mind is considering the implications for the taxonomy of the group if Lisa's experimental crosses produce lots of johannis-ish, marmorata-ish and correia-araujoi-ish offspring with similar frequencies. Quite delicious.

Cheers, Paul2