Luther in J Brom Soc 43: 59. 1993
One of the most confusing and frequently misidentified species of cultivated Tillandsia is T velickiana L.B. Smith. Opinions regarding its identity and status have varied widely and changed rapidly. My own "Explanations For Taxa No Longer on the Bromeliad Binomial List," BIC, 1 May 1992 (distributed to BSI affiliated societies), was caught in midstride, so to speak, with T. velickiana listed both as a synonym and as a valid name.
In the spring of 1992, I examined and compared types of T. velickiana and T. matudae L.B. Smith, supplemental material in herbaria and in cultivation, the original literature pertaining to those species (Smith, 1949, 1974a, 1974b ), and the published account of the recently described species T. feldhoffii Ehlers (1990). It is now reasonably certain what taxa exist, how they should be circumscribed, and how most of the confusion developed. The following should clear up most of the misunderstandings.
In his original description of T. velickiana, L.B. Smith (1974a) compared Gerson Velick's new species to both T. lepidosepala L.B. Smith and T. benthamiana Klotzsch ex Baker (now T erubescens Schlectendal). T. velickiana actually shares very few characters with the former but appears to be closely related to the latter differing, as stated in the Latin diagnosis, by a shorter scape, and scape bracts much shorter than the floral bracts. So far, so good!
Problems begin with the full English description. At this point, it must be explained that the sender, Velick, was not aware that his shipment of unknown Guatemalan tillandsias evidently contained two superficially similar species: the new T. velickiana and the earlier-described T. matudae. The stated petal color (white) was not observed by either Smith or Velick but was based on a description of another plant from the original shipment (undoubtedly a T. matudae) flowered by William Paylen (correspondence in the T. velickiana folder at the United States National Herbarium (US). In addition, a supplementary note (with the species name misspelled) in the Journal of the Bromeliad Society (Smith, 1974b) was illustrated with an excellent photograph taken by Kathy Dorr (G. Velick, pers. comm., 1992) of a well-grown T. matudae. I am certain that this photo along with the somewhat fragmentary and distorted state of the type specimen ( one of the inflorescences is flattened and appears to be more or less distichously-flowered) was the main cause for C.S. Gardner's decision to sink T. velickiana into T. matudae (Gardner, 1983, 1986). Most of us followed her lead.
The epithet velickiana may have disappeared from use but the plants continued to be exported from Guatemala. Commercial horticulture abhors a nomenclatural vacuum so the "unnamed" tillandsia was soon dubbed Tillandsia "oaxacana Guatemala."
Tillandsia oaxacana L.B. Smith is another closely related species but is amply distinct morphologically and does not grow very near to Guatemala. Renate Ehlers (1990) recognized that the Guatemalan plant was not T. oaxacana ( and it could not be the T. velickiana if that plant were the same as T. matudae); therefore, it needed a name which she supplied: T. feldhoffii. She described and illustrated it accurately and fully. There is no confusion associated with the name. However, I consider it to be a superfluous renaming of the older T. velickiana.
Up to this point, I have described events that, in a perfect world, should not have occurred:
a) the mixing of characters of two distinct species in an original description,
b) the use of a misnamed photo of a different species in a supplemental note,
c) the erroneous synonymizing of a good species and its renaming.
Can Tillandsia velickiana really be distinguished from T. matudae? Can it be separated from T. feldhoffii?
We need to look at the type specimens (the original dried specimens on which the species author based their names). Note that T. velickiana has a simple, elliptical inflorescence with more or less polystichously-arranged, densely lepidote floral bracts. No mature flowers are preserved on the type but nearly all observers report blue or blue-violet tubular corollas with conspicuously exserted stamens and style. I concur with the latter observation.
In contrast, T. matudae has a compound, digitate inflorescence with distichously arranged, sparsely lepidote (often nearly glabrous) floral bracts. The flowers of the type appear to have included stamens and style. No color is stated. They are now known to have exserted stamens and style and white petals. This is clearly shown in the photo of "Tillandsia velickeana " (sic) mentioned above. So, T. velickiana can be distinguished from T. matudae by flower arrangement (polystichous, not distichous), by floral bract indumentum ( densely, not sparsely lepidote) and by corolla color (blue or blue-violet, not white). Accordingly, T. velickiana and T. matudae are clearly good, distinct species.
It must be mentioned that both Drs. W. Rauh and J. Rutschmann understood the problems back in 1975 (correspondence in specimen folders at US) but did not elaborate or clarify matters in the literature. The reason may have been the existence of specimens (cf. Rauh 38838, 38842, 44063 at US) with characters intermediate between T. velickiana and T. matudae ( compound inflorescences and partially or wholly distichously-arranged, lepidote floral bracts). In my opinion, these odd plants could represent hybrids as both Rauh and Rutschmann reported that T. velickiana and T. matudae were sympatric at several sites in Guatemala (correspondence in specimen folders at US).
I have not examined the holotype specimen to T. feldhoffii, but my evaluation of the habit photograph, the drawing of the floral details, and the full description in its original publication (Ehlers, 1990), gives me confidence that it does not differ significantly from the type of T. velickiana. I, therefore, consider T. feldhoffii to be a synonym of the earlier T. velickiana.
In closing, I believe I should warn horticulturists that both T. velickiana and T. matudae may present problems in cultivation. Both are native to moist pine/oak cloud forests of ca. 2000 m elevation. This means that they require cool nights. They are usually impossible to cultivate in hot, lowland areas. —SeeSmith & Downs 1977
One of the most confusing and frequently misidentified species of culti¬vated Tillandsia is T velickiana L.B. Smith. Opinions regarding its identity and status have varied widely and changed rapidly. My own "Explanations For Taxa No Longer on the Bromeliad Binomial List," BIC, 1 May 1992 (distributed to BSI affiliated societies), was caught in midstride, so to speak, with T. velickiana listed both as a synonym and as a valid name.
In the spring of 1992, I examined and compared types of T. velickiana and T. matudae L.B. Smith, supplemental material in herbaria and in cultiva¬tion, the original literature pertaining to those species (Smith, 1949, 1974a, 1974b ), and the published account of the recently described species T. feld¬hoffii Ehlers (1990). It is now reasonably certain what taxa exist, how they should be circumscribed, and how most of the confusion developed. The fol¬lowing should clear up most of the misunderstandings.
In his original description of T. velickiana, L.B. Smith (1974a) compared Gerson Velick's new species to both T. lepidosepala L.B. Smith and T. ben¬thamiana Klotzsch ex Baker (now T erubescens Schlectendal). T. velickiana actually shares very few characters with the former but appears to be closely related to the latter differing, as stated in the Latin diagnosis, by a shorter scape, and scape bracts much shorter than the floral bracts. So far, so good!
Problems begin with the full English description. At this point, it must be explained that the sender, Velick, was not aware that his shipment of unknown Guatemalan tillandsias evidently contained two superficially similar species: the new T. velickiana and the earlier-described T. matudae. The stated petal color (white) was not observed by either Smith or Velick but was based on a description of another plant from the original shipment (undoubtedly a T. matudae) flowered by William Paylen (correspondence in the T. velickiana folder at the United States National Herbarium (US). In addition, a supplementary note (with the species name misspelled) in the Journal of the Bromeliad Society (Smith, 1974b) was illustrated with an excellent photo¬graph taken by Kathy Dorr (G. Velick, pers. comm., 1992) of a well-grown T. matudae. I am certain that this photo along with the somewhat fragmentary and distorted state of the type specimen ( one of the inflorescences is flattened and appears to be more or less distichously-flowered) was the main cause for C.S. Gardner's decision to sink T. velickiana into T. matudae (Gardner, 1983, 1986). Most of us followed her lead.
The epithet velickiana may have disappeared from use but the plants continued to be exported from Guatemala. Commercial horticulture abhors a nomenclatural vacuum so the "unnamed" tillandsia was soon dubbed Tillandsia "oaxacana Guatemala."
Tillandsia oaxacana L.B. Smith is another closely related species but is amply distinct morphologically and does not grow very near to Guatemala. Renate Ehlers (1990) recognized that the Guatemalan plant was not T. oaxa¬cana ( and it could not be the T. velickiana if that plant were the same as T. matudae); therefore, it needed a name which she supplied: T. feldhoffii. She described and illustrated it accurately and fully. There is no confusion associ¬ated with the name. However, I consider it to be a superfluous renaming of the older T. velickiana.
Up to this point, I have described events that, in a perfect world, should not have occurred:
a) the mixing of characters of two distinct species in an original descrip¬tion,
b) the use of a misnamed photo of a different species in a supplemental note,
c) the erroneous synonymizing of a good species and its renaming.
Can Tillandsia velickiana really be distinguished from T. matudae? Can it be separated from T. feldhoffii?
We need to look at the type specimens (the original dried specimens on which the species author based their names). Note that T. velickiana has a simple, elliptical inflorescence with more or less polystichously-arranged, densely lepidote floral bracts. No mature flowers are preserved on the type but nearly all observers report blue or blue-violet tubular corollas with conspicu¬ously exserted stamens and style. I concur with the latter observation.
In contrast, T. matudae has a compound, digitate inflorescence with distichously arranged, sparsely lepidote (often nearly glabrous) floral bracts. The flowers of the type appear to have included stamens and style. No color is stated. They are now known to have exserted stamens and style and white petals. This is clearly shown in the photo of "Tillandsia velickeana " (sic) mentioned above. So, T. velickiana can be distinguished from T. matudae by flower arrangement (polystichous, not distichous), by floral bract indumen¬tum ( densely, not sparsely lepidote) and by corolla color (blue or blue-violet, not white). Accordingly, T. velickiana and T. matudae are clearly good, distinct species.
It must be mentioned that both Drs. W. Rauh and J. Rutschmann under¬stood the problems back in 1975 (correspondence in specimen folders at US) but did not elaborate or clarify matters in the literature. The reason may have been the existence of specimens (cf. Rauh 38838, 38842, 44063 at US) with characters intermediate between T. velickiana and T. matudae (compound inflorescences and partially or wholly distichously-arranged, lepidote floral bracts). In my opinion, these odd plants could represent hybrids as both Rauh and Rutschmann reported that T. velickiana and T. matudae were sympatric at several sites in Guatemala (correspondence in specimen folders at US).
I have not examined the holotype specimen to T. feldhoffii, but my eval¬uation of the habit photograph, the drawing of the floral details, and the full description in its original publication (Ehlers, 1990), gives me confidence that it does not differ significantly from the type of T. velickiana. I, therefore, con¬sider T. feldhoffii to be a synonym of the earlier T. velickiana.
In closing, I believe I should warn horticulturists that both T. velickiana and T. matudae may present problems in cultivation. Both are native to moist pine/oak cloud forests of ca. 2000 m elevation. This means that they require cool nights. They are usually impossible to cultivate in hot, lowland areas. —SeeLuther 1993bp. 59
