BROMELIACEAE (QLD Journal) MAY/JUNE, 1998
This all started with yet another parcel from John Catlan in Queensland with a plant named Neoregelia macwilliamsii. Now we all know the differences between N.macwilliamsii and N.compacta don't we? One is bigger than the other!
This saga started twenty odd years ago when we grew N. compacta in Adelaide where it flowered in the middle of winter and promptly died. Eventually it dawned on us that the plant didn't like living in Adelaide.
Some ten years ago we heard about N. macwilliamsii growing rampant in Queensland, so we thought we'd have another try. AND YES, N. macwilliamsii grows rampant in Adelaide too, but doesn't flower! So I have to rely on me mates such as John Catlan to send me the odd parcel now and again with a flowering specimen.
First things first. I had to photograph the plant and its sex parts before starting dissecting. This was finished including a discussion with the female of the household as to whether the top third of the petal was mauve (Isley #45) on the outside, and rose pink (#37) on the inside, or was it lilac (#44) depending on whether you looked at the comparison chart indoors or outdoors! Anyway this seemed more scientific than L.B.Smith's red for N.compacta and nothing for N. macwilliamsii. !
The comparison began and we came very close to N. macwilliamsii, despite the fact that long stolons are not mentioned in the formal description. The centre leaves were red with small green dots as specified and all other detail seemed to nearly match.
Harry Luther has always pointed out to me the similarity between the two species and that N. macwilliamsii could be conspecific. In fact he believes that the only difference is that N. macwilliamsii is a N. compacta with one or two genes from N. marmorata. This makes you think of a Skotak hybrid, only it has happened in the wild and could be represented by the formula N.compacta X compacta X marmorata X compacta !
What does intrigue me is that L.B.Smith named N. macwilliamsii in 1969 when he was aware of the existence of N. compacta. If you use Smith's Key using the N. macwilliamsii description you come to N. compacta! However. he decided to compare N. macwilliamsii with N. carolinae .
Let me digress for a moment. When a botanist describes a new species they must either describe the plant totally in Latin or do a comparison with another species in Latin. A Latin comparison is easier and seems more popular.
As a layman I used to think they would pick a species most closely allied but now I am not so sure. The cynic in me keeps suggesting that if 'A' differed from 'B' because of width of leaf then it would be quickly spotted as a synonym. If 'A' differed from 'C' because of a number of factors the outcome would be more clouded! Hence my concern in Smith's comparison of N. macwilliamsii with N. carolina e rather than N. compacta.
You are no doubt aware I have correspondents all around the world and luckily all write and understand Australian. I have one very good contact in Hawaii who is always having problems with correctly named 'species' imported from mainland USA. So we compare notes.
Lisa Vinzant said this, "The giant form of N. compacta is sometimes called N. macwilliamsii, although it exhibits flower morphology similar to the smaller N. compacta. Apparently it has a strong gene for marmoration since 100% of its hybrid offspring so far have been spotted plants, whereas N. compacta crossed with some other parent (e.g. N. concentrica) has shown none of this. Also you can tell the difference between the two not long after germination. A seedling with one N. macwilliamsii parent, be it male or female is long and grassy in a way that sets it apart from any other neoregelia that I've seen. I'm not saying that this is enough to qualify it as a separate species, just that there is more here than meets the eye" . For those who use photographs or paintings to assist in naming plants, there is a botanical painting by Margaret Mee that looks identical to N. macwilliamsii even to the small green spots on the red centre leaves, BUT, it is called N. compacta !
Elton Leme is slowly working through this group of the Bromelioideae and I hope he has a solution to our problem. As an aside, his latest book entitled 'Canistrum', but covering Edmundoa, Wittrockia, Hylaeaicum and Aechmea as well, is a great read, and is worth the $125.00 cost and should be in every Group's Library. It is of interest to the technically minded such as Peter Franklin and myself, and has great coloured pictures for the not so technical.
The N. compacta saga continues in Australia where John Catlan has promised to send me a flowering portion of a 'true' N. compacta as grown in Queensland for comparison purposes. Apparently there is a range of plants in Queensland, from a compact N. compacta to an extra large, rarely flowering rampant N. macwilliamsii. (I think they let Adelaide have the last mentioned to keep us quiet !)
Both N. compacta and N. macwilliamsii offset well and I cannot see the necessity to grow these from seed, so how did this range of plants occur? Have successive waves of importation occurred from the USA each bringing in a 'true' clone with little pedigree?
Butcher
Fulham, S.A.
