I see a resemblance but your flowers are really different.

{{gwi:480009}}

Sander

Looks too spiny to be amoena.

Paul, the plant looks rather like Gerda (or possibly Grande?). Mine has never bloomed so I'm not sure about the flower, but it's half amoena v. viridis. The FCBS photo does show it to have an amoena-ish look:

Here is a link that might be useful: Bill. Gerda

I don't know. I checked the monograph and it really does key out as Bill. amoena. Reading the species description- it's extremely variable- just about anything goes, including the spiny leaves and recurved flowers. The only things that definitely eliminated are "var. viridis" (totally green petals) and "var.minor" (red sepals). The only listed defining characteristic for var. rubra is "leaves red" (nothing said about sepals or petals). I suspect that there's a difference between B. amoena var. rubra, and B. amoena red form (which may be a recognized form since the printing of the monograph in 1979). But it's certainly not clear.
As I recall, I got the little Billbergia from our local botanical gardens several years ago. It's likely that it's origins were as a field collection many years ago, so that would make it even more unlikely to be a hybrid.
Paul

Paul,

It looks like a Muriel Waterman to me. Grown in bright light.

Good work on the cross.

Rick

Here is a link that might be useful: FCBS

Paul,
That bill looks very familiar to me, but Rick, I don't think it is Murial Waterman - the flower is too different. It does look like it has amoena in it, or a variety of amoena, with those red bracts, and very similar flowers. In the morning, I'll check on an amoena variety in my shade house which looks so much like it, and post a pic to compare.
Our today is your tomorrow, so it might take a while.....?? Oooh, I'm confused! But I do know that I am female LOL.

Cheers,
Kerry

Paul, is it possible that maybe Don Beadle has got a hand in this? I've seen many hybrids of his where the the parentage info was in limbo.

Sorry Paul - when I checked in my shade house, the one I thought might be it, or close to it, didn't have the slight silver barring as yours does. It is labeled as a cross between B. amoena var. viridis and amoena var. minor. Recently, a member of our local brom society brought one just like yours in to the meeting for ID, 'tho maybe a bit bigger than yours. It was not in flower, so our Bill expert was not prepared to commit with an ID. I still agree with you that it is likely a variety of amoena, but which one?
I'd be interested to know if you solve the mystery.

Cheers,
Kerry

Kerry, you just brought up another possibility. If it was a cross between two forms of amoena it would key out to amoena but wouldn't match any of them perfectly.

Thanks Kerry and Lisa. I'll be going to Matthaei Botanical Gardens in a couple of weeks. With any luck, I'll find the original plant with a correct label and accession # with information identifying its source. However, this is a public collection, and the "garden gnomes" seem to have a way of misplacing labels!

I finally got to check out the accessions info at MBG. There records proved to be absolutely inconclusive. Meanwhile, I posted the photo on the brom-l list. Two responses came back suggesting Bill. horrida var. tigrina as a parent, including a response from Harry Luther who suggested it was a hybrid of Bill. amoena x horrida var. tigrina. I checked the cultivar registry and see that there are several crosses of Bill. amoena x horrida var. tigrina (different varieties crossed both ways). None of the available photos are an exact match, but I can see how it would make sense to have those 2 species as parents.