Aechmea distichantha Lem.
Literature references:
*move your mouse pointer over the page numbers to see comment
Comments:
- TAXON 45 - AUGUST 1996 547 (1243)
Proposal to conserve the name Aechmea distichantha (Bromeliaceae: Bromelioideae) Jason R. Grant
(1243) Aechmea distichantha Lem., Jard. Fleur. 3: ad t. 269. 15 Feb 1853 [Bromel.], nom. cons. prop.
Type: [icon in] Lemaire, Jard. Fleur.: t. 269. 1853.
(≡) Billbergia distichostachya Lem., Jard. Fleur. 2: 96. Sept 1851 (`distichostachia ),
nom. rej. prop.
(=) Billbergia polystachya Lindl. & Paxton, Paxt. Fl. Gard. 3: ad t. 80. May 1852,
nom. rej. prop.Type: [icon in] Lindley & Paxton, Paxt. Fl. Gard.: t. 80. May
1852. .
Aechmea distichantha Lem. is a superfluous renaming of Billbergia distichostachya Lem., and is also predated by B. polystachya Lindl. & Paxton. A conservation proposal is needed for nomenclatural stability.
Lemaire (l.c. 1851) announced Billbergia distichostachya (`distichostachia ) as a new taxon that would be described and illustrated later, but in doing so, he briefly described the species and, probably inadvertently, validly published its name. No specimens were cited and none are known to exist. Therefore a neotype is here selected, the same plate as the conserved type of Aechmea distichantha, whereby the homotypic status of both is preserved. Next, Lindley & Paxton (l.c. 1852) proposed B. polystachya for what is clearly the same species, but that name has since never been used. When Lemaire, in 1853, published the full description and illustration of his new taxon, he changed its name to A. distichantha and, at the same time, recognized that it was the same as Lindley & Paxton's B. polystachya. Lindley & Paxton had based their description and illustration on a plant that Jonghe had on display at an exposition at the Royal Horticultural Society in London, whereas Lemaire had at his disposal a plate and dried specimen personally supplied to him by Jonghe.
Aechmea distichantha has been consistently used in important catalogues (e.g. Morren, Cat. Bromel.: 3. 1873), and both regional Brazilian Floras (e.g. Mez in Martius, Fl. Bras. 3(3): 342-343. 1892; Smith in Smithsonian Misc. Collect. 126: 213-215. 1955; Reitz, Bromel. Malaria: 413-417. 1983; Leme & Marigo, Bromel. Brazil. Wild.: 104-105. 1993) and full monographic treatments of the Bromeliaceae (e.g. Beer, Fam. Bromel.: 136. 1856; Baker, Handb. Bromel.: 54. 1889; Mez in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 9: 249-250. 1896; Mez in Engler, Pflanzenr. 100: 149. 1935; and Smith & Downs in Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 14: 1889-1893. 1979). The other two names have never been adopted in any major treatment and their use now would be disruptive both in botany and horticulture. p. Taxon
- Key to Varieties and Forms of Aechmea distichantha
1. Inflorescence lax or sublax, usually broadly pyramidal; spikes more or less spreading, many-flowered; leaves usually acute or acuminate. var distichantha.
2. Petals purple or blue. var distichantha forma distichantha.
2. Petals white. var distichantha forma albiflora.
1b. Inflorescence dense; spikes erect, few-flowered.
3. Inflorescence elongate, slenderly cylindric or fusiform; plants large; leaves usually attenuate.
var schlumbergeri.
3. Inflorescence short, ovoid; plants small; leaves usually rounded and apiculate.
var glaziovii.
1c All parts of the plant shiny var. vernicosa p. Smith & Downs plus
- An interpretive nightmare - The Aechmea distichantha / wittmackiana Complex
By Derek Butcher and Peter Franklin 2001
Summary:
We have unearthed a number of photographs of plants in reputable bromeliad books which do not appear to link with the descriptions or key given by Lyman B Smith in Flora Neotropica Bromelioideae (1977). We have also investigated plants being grown in Australia which correspond to these photographs. It has been suggested that we take herbarium specimens of the plants in Australia but we decided against this because it would cloud the situation even more and, of course, we do not have habitat information.
It has also been suggested that our solution would not be upheld because we had not critically examined the herbarium specimens or the original descriptions. This would have been difficult from here in Australia and the fact that we are amateurs, access to the various herbaria would have been very difficult. In any event we feel some trust should be made in the descriptions by Lyman Smith even though interpretation may be in error.
So we leave it to posterity where some professional botanist may take up the challenge and is welcome to use what material we have unearthed. In the meantime we will add our views to cyber-space rather than publish in some printed form according to ICBN rules.
The following will show you how we have addressed the problem and offer possible solutions
There appears to be quite a diversity of these plants in Australia and in the United States with some misnaming involved. Let us see how Lyman Smith sees the key differences.
Scape stout, erect, inflorescence amply compound, spikes many flowered, placentae apical, leaf blades not channelled = Aechmea distichantha
Scape slender, decurved, inflorescence depauperately compound, spikes 1 - 3 flowered, placentae median, leaf blades channelled. = Aechmea wittmackiana
When you check the description of A. wittmackiana you find that placentae is sub-apical to sub-central, which means that the characters used in the key don’t match the description.
Now let us look at the differences within A. distichantha
1. Inflorescence lax or sub-lax, usually broadly pyramidal, spikes more or less spreading, many flowered, leaves usually acute or acuminate. var. distichantha
2. Petals purple or blue var distichantha f. distichantha
2. Petals white var. distichantha f albiflora
1. Inflorescence dense, spikes erect, few flowered, leaves usually attenuate or rounded and apiculate
3. Inflorescence elongate, slenderly cylindric or fusiform, plants large, leaves usually attenuate var schlumbergeri
3. Inflorescence short, ovoid, plants small, leaves usually rounded and apiculate
var. glaziovii
Just after the Smith and Downs Monograph was published (1979), Pereira named Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa ( Bradea 2 : 308. 1979). The interesting thing here is that this plant was described simultaneously with Billbergia pyramidalis var. vernicosa. It has since been found that the Billbergia specimen had had insecticide sprayed on it giving it that ‘varnished’ look! The Billbergia naming has been abandoned, but what about Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa? We’ll exclude it, assuming that Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa is a normal Aechmea distichantha that was also sprayed with the insecticide.
We have been looking at this group from different angles. Remember Peter Franklin’s “Exactly what is Aechmea ‘Glutinosa’” in Bromeletter 1999 #1? Remember too that this Aechmea ‘Glutinosa’ had been proudly brought to Australia as a “NEW” Aechmea species from California in 1982 when Uncle Derek was just Derek! In addition Derek has received further living material from Ruby Ryde ( the inflorescence was a bit past it but it was still alive!).
Let us digress. You may recall that we stirred up a problem with Foster’s Aechmea distichantha var. canaliculata which was collected somewhere in the State of S±o Paulo. Here we had problems with Foster’s collection number 3043. A note in Smith and Downs page 2078 indicated that this collection had been split, suggesting that one part was in A. wittmackiana and the other in a new variety of A. distichantha. Jason Grant has checked the 3043 at the Smithsonian and ALL of this collection went to A. wittmackiana and had not been split! Harry Luther was brought into the discussion and he agreed with Jason’s findings. As is usual, I got photographs of herbarium specimens! These showed an inflorescence that was cylindrical at the top but with spreading distichous spikes at the bottom. The voucher for Foster’s 3043 says simple top half, branched below, and the Selby Gardens voucher indicated that their specimen was probably a clone of Foster’s 3043.
Back to Ruby’s living material. Derek had always wondered why Foster used the word “canaliculata” which means grooved or channelled. But now he knows because of the pieces that Ruby sent. The leaves have two keels forming a box gutter which is very distinctive. We cannot find anything in Stearn’s Botanical Latin to describe this structure but perhaps sub-bicarinate might do.
Ruby had sent me two specimens, one from the Buchanans at Wardell in New South Wales, and the other she and Keith had collected. The Buchanans’ one had allegedly been sourced from Marie Selby Gardens in Florida whereas Ruby’s had been collected near the coast at the edge of rainforest between Ubatuba and Caraguatuba in S±o Paulo State, Brazil. The only differences Derek could see were attenuate leaves with a little barring on the back for the Buchanans’ plant compared to rounded, mucronate and very faint barring on the other.
The best way to look at this problem is via a chart so that you can see how the various cultivated forms line up against certain parts of descriptions of the allied species.
Anyone investigating this group will be aware of the sharp teeth on the leaf edge in the larger forms but we decided against using this facit because it is difficult to judge in a photograph AND Lyman Smith shows us that for Aechmea distichantha leaves are finely serrulate or armed with stout spines 4 mm long. We were unable to check on the original descriptions but Baker reveals Aechmea glaziovii as having small teeth.
D S W OQ G MS BW RW GW
Scape stout and erect X X X X X X X X
slender/decurved X
Inflorescence
Amply compound X X X X
Depauperate compound X X X X X
Dense X X X X X
Open X X X X
Spikes many flowered X X X X
1 - 3 flowered X X X X X
Leaf not channelled X X
channelled X X X X X X X
25 - 80 mm wide X X X X X
to 25mm wide X X X X
D = distichantha
S = schlumbergeri
W = wittmackiana
OQ = Olwen’s Query
G = ‘Glutinosa’
MS = McNamara’s schlumbergeri
BW = Buchanans wittmackiana
RW = Ruby’s wittmackiana
GW = Golinski’s wittmackiana
Please note that Golinski’s wittmackiana started off as a Quesnelia but was then renamed as an Aechmea.
You will see from this chart that there are a few problems if we follow Lyman Smith’s interpretation. The Buchanan’s , Golinski’s and Ruby’s plants agree with each other, but do not correspond to the description because of the inflorescence structure. Peter’s A. ‘Glutinosa’ Marjory’s var. schlumbergeri and “Olwen’s Query” which we cannot check for habitat information, agree with each other and link very closely with A. distichantha var. schlumbergeri.
While on the subject of A. distichantha, Peter and I have been discussing whether true A. distichantha var. glaziovii is in cultivation. The plant in Australia looks like the plant in Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads (1994: 63) but differs from the description by having an amply compound inflorescence which is open not dense, and the spikes are many flowered not 1 - 3. Reference to Baker’s “Bromeliaceae” (1889) seems to confirm that we should be looking for a smaller version of var. schlumbergeri rather than a smaller version of var. distichantha. A black and white photograph in Rauh’s Bromeliads for Home, Garden, and Greenhouse (1979: ill. 185) shows what we are looking for.
Identification of Aechmea distichantha var. schlumbergeri is to our mind also in doubt . If you refer to Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads (1994: 63 ) you will see a spindle shaped, sub-lax inflorescence with many-flowered side-spikes. Only the spindle shape agrees with the description! A closer match to the described var. schlumbergeri is a plant that Peter obtained from Marj McNamara which has, you’ve guessed it, sub-bicarinate channelled leaves, providing a link between schlumbergeri and wittmackiana.
If you really want more problems then read Baker’s “Bromeliaceae“ (1889) for descriptions of several species now treated by Lyman Smith as synonyms. All are clearly A. distichantha with some that seem to be describing var. schlumbergeri but all are treated by Lyman Smith as var. distichantha! Interestingly, no one mentions the sub-bicarinate leaves and this includes Aechmea jucunda which was placed in synonymy under Aechmea wittmackiana. We wonder too whether sub-bicarinate leaves can be easiily detected in herbarium specimens. One can only assume that Lyman Smith saw ALL the herbarium specimens involved and decided differently. However, this has not been recorded. Regrettably, too, we have no access to herbarium specimens and can only rely on photographs in reputable books where others have done the identification, namely, Rauh, Reitz, Luther and Read, Leme, and Steyermark.
The differences between the forms we have looked at seem to hinge upon:
1. Compound inflorescence, branches spreading versus depauperate compound, branches erect, simple at top.
2. Plant big versus plant small.
3. Leaves channelled versus non-channelled.
4. Scape stout versus slender.
Which of these characteristics is significant enough to split the distichantha/wittmackiana complex into species or varieties? Lyman Smith seemed to prefer channelling and then compound inflorescence and then size, which we will follow. So using those assumptions, we have the following key which quite successfully describes our investigations and allows the placement of all the the material that we have seen.
1. Leaf blades sub-bicarinate, channelled = Aechmea wittmackiana
2. Inflorescence depauperate compound (simple at top)
3. Leaves narrow to 25mm = A. wittmackiana var. wittmackiana
Includes Fosters 3043, Selby Gardens herbarium specimen, Marnier Lapostolle picture BSB 1967 p75, and A. jucunda BSIJ 1986 p8
3. Leaves wide, 25-80mm = A. wittmackiana var schlumbergeri
Includes A. ‘Glutinosa’, Olwen Ferris’s Query, Marj McNamara’s schlumbergeri
2.Inflorescence compound with open spreading branches = A. wittmackiana var. ramosa
Includes Ruby’s plant, Buchanans’ plant, and Golinski’s plant
1. Leaf blades not channelled = Aechmea distichantha
4.Inflorescence compound with open spreading branches
5. Plant large, leaves 25-80mm wide = A. distichantha var. distichantha
6. Petals blue = A. distichantha var.distichantha f. distichantha
Includes most forms in cultivation and photograph in Bromeliaceas of Venezuela (1987: 52) photograph page 63 in Baensch’s book as var. schlumbergeri, painting and description in Reitz 1983.
6. Petals white = A. distichantha var. distichantha f albiflora
No material seen but allegedly in Australia.
5. Plant small, leaves to 25mm wide = A distichantha var. minor
Includes plant generally grown as var. glaziovii, Photo in Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads p 63 as var. glaziovii, and Photo BSIJ 1977 p 168 as var. glaziovii.
4. Inflorescence depauperate compound (simple at top), leaves to 25mm wide =
Aechmea distichantha var glaziovii
Includes photo in Rauh’s Bromeliads for Home, Garden and Glasshouse.(1979: ill. 185)
Not seen in cultivation.
To accommodate these changes we propose the following names:
1. Aechmea wittmackiana (Regel) Mez var. ramosa Butcher and Franklin var. nov.
Differt a forma typica sed inflorescencia ramosa laxior
2. Aechmea wittmackiana (Regel) Mez var. schlumbergeri (E, Morren) Butcher and Franklin comb. nov.
3. We considered the possibility of having another form of Aechmea distichantha v. distichantha to cover those plants that have been misidentified as var. glaziovii. However to accommodate the existing described forms based on petal colour and following the logic of Lyman Smith in separating var. schlumbergeri from var. glaziovii on size at varietal level, we decided that the same differentiation be used for:-
Aechmea distichantha Smith var. minor Butcher and Franklin var. nov.
Differt a forma varietata sed inflorescencia et folii brevior.
Identification of A. wittmackiana and the varieties of A. distichantha seem to hinge on how lax is lax, how channelled is channelled, and how few is few. An intriguing puzzle which you can easily solve by allocating numbers to the various clones just like Peter does to remove the influence that is undoubtedly present because of preconceived notions like “This plant must be correctly named because I got it from so and so!”
The A. wittmackiana (Buchanan’s) from Marie Selby Botanic Gardens, presumably identified by Harry Luther suggests that a depauperate compound inflorescence or slender scape are not significant. Now, if the same logic were applied to the allied species Aechmea distichantha it would have no formal varieties! We can find no written information on the subject. We wonder whether this is yet another case of too many forms and not enough accepted varieties, and so these forms have been given an arbitrary but not necessarily correct name. If this is the case then it adds weight to Peter’s new Key and solution to the problem.
If we refer to Reitz’s Bromeliaceas (1983: 413 - 417) we will see Aechmea distichantha described but only using the synonyms used by Lyman Smith for A. distichantha var. distichantha f. distichantha. However, the description does refer to erect to sub-erect branches of 2 to 7 flowers. The low number of flowers adds problems to Lyman Smith’s key in differentiating A. wittmackiana from A. distichantha on the one hand and the few flowered branched varieties of A. distichantha on the other.
Secondly, Leme seemed loth to use A. distichantha var. schlumbergeri on the photo on page 104 in Bromeliads in the Brazilian Wilderness 1993 even though the inflorescence pictured is far from open, amply compound and spreading. This has the spindle shaped inflorescence but the branches seem few flowered and the side branches are held tight to the main rhachis. It may well be that this plant has erect rather than spreading branches because of the climatic conditions at the time the photo was taken.
The BSI made a giant step forward by having an Identification Centre with Harry Luther running it at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens. Thus, the Alphabetical List of Bromeliad Binomials plays an important monitoring role with a steadying effect particularly now that the De Rebus series in Selbyana provides a formal back-up. Here we find that Smith’s interpretation is still upheld for Aechmea distichantha and Aechmea wittmackiana. A curious note is that a plant called Aechmea wittmackiana purported to have come from Marie Selby Gardens seems to contradict Smith’s findings and seems to be different to the Selby herbarium specimen.
All of these differences, anomalies, omissions and discrepancies between live plants, descriptions and botanists’ interpretations show that something needs to be done to clarify the issues. Our suggestion to have two new names and a new combination of existing names is intended to test the water as to whether the Smith approach should prevail. We have deliberately taken a “splitter” approach, however the problem can be just as successfully resolved by a “lumper” approach. We await some “steadying” effect from Harry Luther where we may see all with strong teeth being Aechmea distichantha and those serrulate being Aechmea wittmackiana.
Peter is already thinking along the lines that the described var. glaziovii fits better in wittmackiana than it does in distichantha but the theory is impossible to check without finding channelling in the leaf blades of the herbarium specimens of var. glaziovii. This will have to remain a theory until further evidence is available.
Please check the photographs linked to this article and to those referred to in other books and advise us if you see any flaws in our argument.
References
Baker J. G. 1889 Handbook of the Bromeliaceae ; Plant Monograph Reprints J. Cramer and H. K
Swann 1972
Leme E. M. C. & Marigo L. C. 1993 Bromeliads in the Brazilian Wilderness
Oliva-Esteva F. & Steyermark J. A. 1987 Bromeliaceas of Venezuela
Rauh W. 1979 Bromeliads for Home, Garden and Greenhouse (English version)
Reitz R. 1983 Bromeliaceas E A Malaria-Bromelia Endemica
Smith L. B. & Downs R. J. 1979 Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae) In Flora Neotropica, Monograph
No. 14 part 3 p. Uncle Derek says - fcbs.org
- EXACTLY WHAT is Aechmea glutinosa? By Peter Franklin Bromeletter 37(1): 6-8. 1999
Several years ago when I was building up my collection, I came across a plant in a local collection that appealed to me so I got one. The plant was labelled Aechmea glutinosa. Ah good yes, a species I thought to myself - I must have one of those. This was in 1988 when all I had for identification was a newly purchased copy of Padilla's book. I had just joined the Hunter District Bromeliad Society, the Bromeliad Society of Australia and the Bromeliad Society Inc. Alas, no mention anywhere of Ae. glutinosa (obviously a very rare species indeed!). A year later acquisition of the Smith and Downs volumes made no difference either, as Ae. glutinosa was not mentioned in those books and even the first release of the Luther and Sieff Binomial list in 1990 shed no light on the matter. In any case, my plant refused to flower so it was impossible to key it out.
Over the next few years my collection increased very substantially. Amongst the new plants was one labelled as Quesnelia sp.? with an `OF' on the corner of the label. `OF' presumably stands for Olwen Ferris. It seems that the plant either didn't have a name or if it did, then Olwen or the label-writer thought that it may have been a species in the genus Quesnelia rather than whatever the original designation may have been.
Eventually it dawned on me that both plants, the Ae. glutinosa and the Quesnelia sp.? were the same even though neither had flowered. After a period of time when they had formed a bit of a clump one and then the other flowered. I can confirm that both plants are the same. But what are they?
From time to time I try to key out my Ae. glutinosa using Smith and Downs and I always end up at Aechmea distichantha even though the plant doesn't exactly match any of the descriptions of the typical Ae. distichantha or any of the described varieties and forms of the species. Nor does it match the plants that are commonly cultivated in Australia as Ae. distichantha. The main differences are:
1. The leaves are broader and more ligulate (strap-like);
2.There is some white banding on the reverse of the leaf blades;
3.The leaf tips are broadly rounded and apiculate;
4.The leaves form an erect funnel shape.
As far as the inflorescence is concerned, the individual flowers are to all intents and purposes identical to the flowers on the normal Ae. distichantha, however the overall shape of the inflorescence is that of a smallish, very densely flowered cylinder with 2 -5 short, dense sub-spreading side branches at the based of the inflorescence. Often the inflorescence is simple throughout. The scape is definitely erect and stout
Recently I had a breakthrough - I thought I had discovered THE breakthrough necessary to identify the plant.
I was browsing through some old BSI Bulletins and came across M.B. Foster's original description and photograph of Aechmea distichantha var. canaliculata (Vol. l2(1), pg 4). Surely this was our Ae. glutinosa!: the broader leaves, the smaller inflorescence even with the branching at the base, the stout scape, the funnel shape of the plant.... It was all there. So how come I hadn't been able to identify it using Smith and Downs? Had I missed something? How come our Ae. glutinosa plant doesn't fall easily into the Smith descriptions (which postdate Foster's description and should therefore include Foster's new plant)? Now did Smith treat Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata anyway? He obviously placed it in synonymy under something else - but what?
Well, Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata M.B. Foster was considered by Smith to be the same as Aechmea wittmackiana (Regel) Mez, so I compared my plant with Smith's description of Ae. wittmackiana just to confirm the identity.
Disappointment! There are real differences, which is probably why I had not considered Ae. wittmackiana to be a candidate before. Ae. wittmackiana is supposed to have long narrow leaves (1-1.3 m long x 25-30 mm wide), has a slender scape which decurves and has leaves that greatly exceeds the inflorescence. That was even further from my Ae. glutinosa than normal Ae. distichantha was! I was hard-pressed to see how Foster's plant fitted that description either.
There is a photograph and article concerning Ae, wittmackiana in the BSI Journal 17(4), p 75, submitted by Marnier-¬Lapostolle some five years after the Foster plant was published. It is quite stoloniferous and has a general overall shape that one might associate more with a Billbergia. It is sufficiently clear though, from the photographs, that the flowering portion of the inflorescence of the Foster plant is the same as the Marnier-Lapostolle one. It seems that the Smith description of Ae. wittnrackiana is weighted in favour of the Marnier-Lapostolle style of plant rather than the Foster one; so much so that the general description of Ae. distichantha better describes the Foster plant than does the Ae. wittmackiana description.
One course of action remained unexplored. Ae. jucunda Morren ex Baker is placed in synonymy under Ae wittmackiana so I looked in Baker's 1889 Handbook (reprinted 1972) and compared the descriptions there with the modern-day ones and the photos from the Journal. Baker's Ae. jucunda plant has long narrow leaves with white banding on the back of the leaves, a slender scape and a smaller (3") inflorescence. This is nearly the same as the Smith description for Ae. wittmackiana except that Baker has `Peduncle slender much overtopping the leaves' while Smith has the opposite `Inflorescence greatly exceeded by the leaves'.
There is some further information concerning Ae. jucunda ( = Ae wittmackiana) in the BSI Journal 26(1), pg 8, where Smith has reproduced a photograph of Morren's painting of Ae. jucunda. This painting matches Baker's description and is close to Foster's photo and description except for the width of the leaves.
So where does this leave us?
The main differences among all the photos, the descriptions and the cultivated Ae. glutinosa are in the width of the leaves, the thickness of the scape, the relative length of leaf versus scape and the extent to which the plant is stoloniferous. The floral parts are essentially all the same.
I am prepared to say that:¬
l . If you have a plant whose individual flowers seems to be Ae. distichantha but is labelled as Ae. glutinosa (or perhaps Quesnelia sp.) then you could have the plant described by M.B. Foster as Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata or by Baker as Ae. jucunda, but which we now call Ae. wittmackiana.
2.Smith's description should say `Inflorescence exceeding the leaves'. See Smith's own photograph of Morren's painting.
3. The Marnier-Lapostolle photograph with its almost pendant inflorescence and very erect narrow pointy leaves is not very typical of the species and was misleading for me, as were the longer stolons on this plant. Was this plant grown in the dark? Or should this be a separate variety, form or cultivar of Ae. wittmackiana?
4. The general comment of `narrow' leaves in all the description of Ae. wittmackiana is based upon Morren's painting of a plant grown in Europe, whereas in the relatively hotter, sunnier and drier Australia, cultivated plants are of a stockier (wider and shorter) habit. Foster's photo is of a stockier plant.
5. The general description by Smith of Ae. distichantha includes plants with `blades narrowly triangular to ligulate rounded and apiculate, pungent 25-80 mm wide, finely serrulate or armed with stout dark spines'. Now, that is quite a range. The narrowly triangular blades, pungent 25 mm stout dark spines sounds like the normal cultivated Ae. distichantha whereas the ligulate rounded and apiculate blades, 80 mm wide, finely serrulate sounds more like my Ae. glutinosa (and Foster's Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata). Did Smith broaden the description of Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata with the intention of including Foster's plant and later place it under Ae. wittmackiana?
8. Since starting the research for this article, three new pieces of information have come to light thanks to Derek Butcher and Ross Little. The conclusions do not change as a result, but the information is worthwhile keeping in mind.
6. A plant called `Olwen's Quesnelia' is known to be in cultivation in Queensland. This may be the same as my Quesnelia sp? OF.
7. Derek Butcher brought an Ae. glutinosa into Australia in the early 1980's from California. It would never flower for him in the colder Adelaide winters. It is very unlikely that Derek's plant found its way to Queensland, had a name change, found its way to a Newcastle collection, established a clump with enough pups for the owner to part with one for me all within a couple of years. So the plant has been imported at least twice under two different names, one into Adelaide as Ae. glutinosa and the other into Olwen's collection as a Quesnelia species.
8. A plant called `Quesnelia wittmackiana' is in cultivation in Australia. Could it be that someone else has realised that the plant is really Ae. wittmackiana but has only partly applied the correct name? I have a small pup of this so it will be some years yet before its identity is known. It can be traced to Queensland. Could this be a third importation with yet another name?
One thing all the authors and growers agree upon is that this plant is a shy flowerer. This does seem to be the case until you can cultivate a reasonable sized clump; then a few plants will flower for you each winter. However, as with most naming exercises, I ended up with as many issues, anomalies and problems as 1 started out with. But at least I am reasonably satisfied that Ae. glutinosa (and Quesnelia sp? O.F.) has, at last, a place in the spectrum of Aechmea species as Ae. wittmackiana
POSTSCRIPT FOR `EXACTLY WHAT IS Ae. glutinosa?, by Peter Franklin
I have a feeling there is more to this Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata story than first met the eye. Since I wrote the first article (above), another interesting feature has come to light that may or may not have a bearing on the conclusions drawn in the previous article. It highlights once again, how inexact the science is.
That doyen of detail, Derek Butcher drew this interesting item to my attention, and it occurs in the Smith and Downs Monograph. In the main text of the book it lists -
40-112a1 Aechmea distichantha var. distichantha f. distichantha
40-112a2 Aechmea distichantha var. dlstichantha f. albiflora
40-112b Aechmea distichantha var. schlumbergeri
40-112c Aechmea distichantha var. glaziovii
40-113 Aechmea wittmackiana
Foster's Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata (collection number 3043) is listed as a synonym under 40-113 Ae. wittmackiana. However, Derek points out that if you look up collection number 3043 (page 2078) it has Foster's plant partly assigned to 40-112d and partly to 40-113! This raises the question, what is 40-112d? Was Smith planning to make Foster's plant a fourth variety of Ae. distichantha - or was it the other way around? Was 40-112d left in, in error, after he moved Foster's plant to a synonym of Ae. wittmackiana? Whichever way, it seems even Smith had difficulty placing Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata.
Should it be that we should start to think of Foster's Ae. distichantha var. canaliculata as a good variety after all? In any case, why would Smith want to split a single collection between two taxa like this? All very curious. There are always more questions than answers!
- An interpretive nightmare - The Aechmea distichantha / wittmackiana Complex Derek Butcher and Peter Franklin 2001
Not published.
Summary:
We have unearthed a number of photographs of plants in reputable bromeliad books which do not appear to link with the descriptions or key given by Lyman B Smith in Flora Neotropica Bromelioideae (1977). We have also investigated plants being grown in Australia which correspond to these photographs. It has been suggested that we take herbarium specimens of the plants in Australia but we decided against this because it would cloud the situation even more and, of course, we do not have habitat information.
It has also been suggested that our solution would not be upheld because we had not critically examined the herbarium specimens or the original descriptions. This would have been difficult from here in Australia and the fact that we are amateurs, access to the various herbaria would have been very difficult. In any event we feel some trust should be made in the descriptions by Lyman Smith even though interpretation may be in error.
So we leave it to posterity where some professional botanist may take up the challenge and is welcome to use what material we have unearthed. In the meantime we will add our views to cyber-space rather than publish in some printed form according to ICBN rules.
The following will show you how we have addressed the problem and offer possible solutions
There appears to be quite a diversity of these plants in Australia and in the United States with some misnaming involved. Let us see how Lyman Smith sees the key differences.
Scape stout, erect, inflorescence amply compound, spikes many flowered, placentae apical, leaf blades not channelled = Aechmea distichantha
Scape slender, decurved, inflorescence depauperately compound, spikes 1 - 3 flowered, placentae median, leaf blades channelled. = Aechmea wittmackiana
When you check the description of A. wittmackiana you find that placentae is sub-apical to sub-central, which means that the characters used in the key don’t match the description.
Now let us look at the differences within A. distichantha
1. Inflorescence lax or sub-lax, usually broadly pyramidal, spikes more or less spreading, many flowered, leaves usually acute or acuminate. var. distichantha
2. Petals purple or blue var distichantha f. distichantha
2. Petals white var. distichantha f albiflora
1. Inflorescence dense, spikes erect, few flowered, leaves usually attenuate or rounded and apiculate
3. Inflorescence elongate, slenderly cylindric or fusiform, plants large, leaves usually attenuate var schlumbergeri
3. Inflorescence short, ovoid, plants small, leaves usually rounded and apiculate
var. glaziovii
Just after the Smith and Downs Monograph was published (1979), Pereira named Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa ( Bradea 2 : 308. 1979). The interesting thing here is that this plant was described simultaneously with Billbergia pyramidalis var. vernicosa. It has since been found that the Billbergia specimen had had insecticide sprayed on it giving it that ‘varnished’ look! The Billbergia naming has been abandoned, but what about Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa? We’ll exclude it, assuming that Aechmea distichantha var. vernicosa is a normal Aechmea distichantha that was also sprayed with the insecticide.
We have been looking at this group from different angles. Remember Peter Franklin’s “Exactly what is Aechmea ‘Glutinosa’” in Bromeletter 1999 #1? Remember too that this Aechmea ‘Glutinosa’ had been proudly brought to Australia as a “NEW” Aechmea species from California in 1982 when Uncle Derek was just Derek! In addition Derek has received further living material from Ruby Ryde ( the inflorescence was a bit past it but it was still alive!).
Let us digress. You may recall that we stirred up a problem with Foster’s Aechmea distichantha var. canaliculata which was collected somewhere in the State of Sao Paulo. Here we had problems with Foster’s collection number 3043. A note in Smith and Downs page 2078 indicated that this collection had been split, suggesting that one part was in A. wittmackiana and the other in a new variety of A. distichantha. Jason Grant has checked the 3043 at the Smithsonian and ALL of this collection went to A. wittmackiana and had not been split! Harry Luther was brought into the discussion and he agreed with Jason’s findings. As is usual, I got photographs of herbarium specimens! These showed an inflorescence that was cylindrical at the top but with spreading distichous spikes at the bottom. The voucher for Foster’s 3043 says simple top half, branched below, and the Selby Gardens voucher indicated that their specimen was probably a clone of Foster’s 3043.
Back to Ruby’s living material. Derek had always wondered why Foster used the word “canaliculata” which means grooved or channelled. But now he knows because of the pieces that Ruby sent. The leaves have two keels forming a box gutter which is very distinctive. We cannot find anything in Stearn’s Botanical Latin to describe this structure but perhaps sub-bicarinate might do.
Ruby had sent me two specimens, one from the Buchanans at Wardell in New South Wales, and the other she and Keith had collected. The Buchanans’ one had allegedly been sourced from Marie Selby Gardens in Florida whereas Ruby’s had been collected near the coast at the edge of rainforest between Ubatuba and Caraguatuba in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. The only differences Derek could see were attenuate leaves with a little barring on the back for the Buchanans’ plant compared to rounded, mucronate and very faint barring on the other.
The best way to look at this problem is via a chart so that you can see how the various cultivated forms line up against certain parts of descriptions of the allied species.
Anyone investigating this group will be aware of the sharp teeth on the leaf edge in the larger forms but we decided against using this facit because it is difficult to judge in a photograph AND Lyman Smith shows us that for Aechmea distichantha leaves are finely serrulate or armed with stout spines 4 mm long. We were unable to check on the original descriptions but Baker reveals Aechmea glaziovii as having small teeth.
D S W OQ G MS BW RW GW
Scape stout and erect X X X X X X X X
slender/decurved X
Inflorescence
Amply compound X X X X
Depauperate compound X X X X X
Dense X X X X X
Open X X X X
Spikes many flowered X X X X
1 - 3 flowered X X X X X
Leaf not channelled X X
channelled X X X X X X X
25 - 80 mm wide X X X X X
to 25mm wide X X X X
D = distichantha
S = schlumbergeri
W = wittmackiana
OQ = Olwen’s Query
G = ‘Glutinosa’
MS = McNamara’s schlumbergeri
BW = Buchanans wittmackiana
RW = Ruby’s wittmackiana
GW = Golinski’s wittmackiana
Please note that Golinski’s wittmackiana started off as a Quesnelia but was then renamed as an Aechmea.
You will see from this chart that there are a few problems if we follow Lyman Smith’s interpretation. The Buchanan’s , Golinski’s and Ruby’s plants agree with each other, but do not correspond to the description because of the inflorescence structure. Peter’s A. ‘Glutinosa’ Marjory’s var. schlumbergeri and “Olwen’s Query” which we cannot check for habitat information, agree with each other and link very closely with A. distichantha var. schlumbergeri.
While on the subject of A. distichantha, Peter and I have been discussing whether true A. distichantha var. glaziovii is in cultivation. The plant in Australia looks like the plant in Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads (1994: 63) but differs from the description by having an amply compound inflorescence which is open not dense, and the spikes are many flowered not 1 - 3. Reference to Baker’s “Bromeliaceae” (1889) seems to confirm that we should be looking for a smaller version of var. schlumbergeri rather than a smaller version of var. distichantha. A black and white photograph in Rauh’s Bromeliads for Home, Garden, and Greenhouse (1979: ill. 185) shows what we are looking for.
Identification of Aechmea distichantha var. schlumbergeri is to our mind also in doubt . If you refer to Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads (1994: 63 ) you will see a spindle shaped, sub-lax inflorescence with many-flowered side-spikes. Only the spindle shape agrees with the description! A closer match to the described var. schlumbergeri is a plant that Peter obtained from Marj McNamara which has, you’ve guessed it, sub-bicarinate channelled leaves, providing a link between schlumbergeri and wittmackiana.
If you really want more problems then read Baker’s “Bromeliaceae“ (1889) for descriptions of several species now treated by Lyman Smith as synonyms. All are clearly A. distichantha with some that seem to be describing var. schlumbergeri but all are treated by Lyman Smith as var. distichantha! Interestingly, no one mentions the sub-bicarinate leaves and this includes Aechmea jucunda which was placed in synonymy under Aechmea wittmackiana. We wonder too whether sub-bicarinate leaves can be easiily detected in herbarium specimens. One can only assume that Lyman Smith saw ALL the herbarium specimens involved and decided differently. However, this has not been recorded. Regrettably, too, we have no access to herbarium specimens and can only rely on photographs in reputable books where others have done the identification, namely, Rauh, Reitz, Luther and Read, Leme, and Steyermark.
The differences between the forms we have looked at seem to hinge upon:
1. Compound inflorescence, branches spreading versus depauperate compound, branches erect, simple at top.
2. Plant big versus plant small.
3. Leaves channelled versus non-channelled.
4. Scape stout versus slender.
Which of these characteristics is significant enough to split the distichantha/wittmackiana complex into species or varieties? Lyman Smith seemed to prefer channelling and then compound inflorescence and then size, which we will follow. So using those assumptions, we have the following key which quite successfully describes our investigations and allows the placement of all the the material that we have seen.
1. Leaf blades sub-bicarinate, channelled = Aechmea wittmackiana
2. Inflorescence depauperate compound (simple at top)
3. Leaves narrow to 25mm = A. wittmackiana var. wittmackiana
Includes Fosters 3043, Selby Gardens herbarium specimen, Marnier Lapostolle picture BSB 1967 p75, and A. jucunda BSIJ 1986 p8
3. Leaves wide, 25-80mm = A. wittmackiana var schlumbergeri
Includes A. ‘Glutinosa’, Olwen Ferris’s Query, Marj McNamara’s schlumbergeri
2.Inflorescence compound with open spreading branches = A. wittmackiana var. ramosa
Includes Ruby’s plant, Buchanans’ plant, and Golinski’s plant
1. Leaf blades not channelled = Aechmea distichantha
4.Inflorescence compound with open spreading branches
5. Plant large, leaves 25-80mm wide = A. distichantha var. distichantha
6. Petals blue = A. distichantha var.distichantha f. distichantha
Includes most forms in cultivation and photograph in Bromeliaceas of Venezuela (1987: 52) photograph page 63 in Baensch’s book as var. schlumbergeri, painting and description in Reitz 1983.
6. Petals white = A. distichantha var. distichantha f albiflora
No material seen but allegedly in Australia.
5. Plant small, leaves to 25mm wide = A distichantha var. minor
Includes plant generally grown as var. glaziovii, Photo in Baensch’s Blooming Bromeliads p 63 as var. glaziovii, and Photo BSIJ 1977 p 168 as var. glaziovii.
4. Inflorescence depauperate compound (simple at top), leaves to 25mm wide =
Aechmea distichantha var glaziovii
Includes photo in Rauh’s Bromeliads for Home, Garden and Glasshouse.(1979: ill. 185)
Not seen in cultivation.
To accommodate these changes we propose the following names:
1. Aechmea wittmackiana (Regel) Mez var. ramosa Butcher and Franklin var. nov.
Differt a forma typica sed inflorescencia ramosa laxior
2. Aechmea wittmackiana (Regel) Mez var. schlumbergeri (E, Morren) Butcher and Franklin comb. nov.
3. We considered the possibility of having another form of Aechmea distichantha v. distichantha to cover those plants that have been misidentified as var. glaziovii. However to accommodate the existing described forms based on petal colour and following the logic of Lyman Smith in separating var. schlumbergeri from var. glaziovii on size at varietal level, we decided that the same differentiation be used for:-
Aechmea distichantha Smith var. minor Butcher and Franklin var. nov.
Differt a forma varietata sed inflorescencia et folii brevior.
Identification of A. wittmackiana and the varieties of A. distichantha seem to hinge on how lax is lax, how channelled is channelled, and how few is few. An intriguing puzzle which you can easily solve by allocating numbers to the various clones just like Peter does to remove the influence that is undoubtedly present because of preconceived notions like “This plant must be correctly named because I got it from so and so!”
The A. wittmackiana (Buchanan’s) from Marie Selby Botanic Gardens, presumably identified by Harry Luther suggests that a depauperate compound inflorescence or slender scape are not significant. Now, if the same logic were applied to the allied species Aechmea distichantha it would have no formal varieties! We can find no written information on the subject. We wonder whether this is yet another case of too many forms and not enough accepted varieties, and so these forms have been given an arbitrary but not necessarily correct name. If this is the case then it adds weight to Peter’s new Key and solution to the problem.
If we refer to Reitz’s Bromeliaceas (1983: 413 - 417) we will see Aechmea distichantha described but only using the synonyms used by Lyman Smith for A. distichantha var. distichantha f. distichantha. However, the description does refer to erect to sub-erect branches of 2 to 7 flowers. The low number of flowers adds problems to Lyman Smith’s key in differentiating A. wittmackiana from A. distichantha on the one hand and the few flowered branched varieties of A. distichantha on the other.
Secondly, Leme seemed loth to use A. distichantha var. schlumbergeri on the photo on page 104 in Bromeliads in the Brazilian Wilderness 1993 even though the inflorescence pictured is far from open, amply compound and spreading. This has the spindle shaped inflorescence but the branches seem few flowered and the side branches are held tight to the main rhachis. It may well be that this plant has erect rather than spreading branches because of the climatic conditions at the time the photo was taken.
The BSI made a giant step forward by having an Identification Centre with Harry Luther running it at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens. Thus, the Alphabetical List of Bromeliad Binomials plays an important monitoring role with a steadying effect particularly now that the De Rebus series in Selbyana provides a formal back-up. Here we find that Smith’s interpretation is still upheld for Aechmea distichantha and Aechmea wittmackiana. A curious note is that a plant called Aechmea wittmackiana purported to have come from Marie Selby Gardens seems to contradict Smith’s findings and seems to be different to the Selby herbarium specimen.
All of these differences, anomalies, omissions and discrepancies between live plants, descriptions and botanists’ interpretations show that something needs to be done to clarify the issues. Our suggestion to have two new names and a new combination of existing names is intended to test the water as to whether the Smith approach should prevail. We have deliberately taken a “splitter” approach, however the problem can be just as successfully resolved by a “lumper” approach. We await some “steadying” effect from Harry Luther where we may see all with strong teeth being Aechmea distichantha and those serrulate being Aechmea wittmackiana.
Peter is already thinking along the lines that the described var. glaziovii fits better in wittmackiana than it does in distichantha but the theory is impossible to check without finding channelling in the leaf blades of the herbarium specimens of var. glaziovii. This will have to remain a theory until further evidence is available.
Please check the photographs linked to this article and to those referred to in other books and advise us if you see any flaws in our argument.
References
Baker J. G. 1889 Handbook of the Bromeliaceae ; Plant Monograph Reprints J. Cramer and H. K
Swann 1972
Leme E. M. C. & Marigo L. C. 1993 Bromeliads in the Brazilian Wilderness
Oliva-Esteva F. & Steyermark J. A. 1987 Bromeliaceas of Venezuela
Rauh W. 1979 Bromeliads for Home, Garden and Greenhouse (English version)
Reitz R. 1983 Bromeliaceas E A Malaria-Bromelia Endemica
Smith L. B. & Downs R. J. 1979 Bromelioideae (Bromeliaceae) In Flora Neotropica, Monograph
No. 14 part 3
- TAXON 45 - AUGUST 1996 547 (1243)
Proposal to conserve the name Aechmea distichantha (Bromeliaceae: Bromelioideae)
Jason R. Grant
(1243) Aechmea distichantha Lem., Jard. Fleur. 3: ad t. 269. 15 Feb 1853 [Bromel.], nom. cons. prop.
(≡) Billbergia distichostachya Lem., Jard. Fleur. 2: 96. Sept 1851 (`distichosta¬chia ),
nom. rej. prop.
(=) Billbergia polystachya Lindl. & Paxton, Paxt. Fl. Gard. 3: ad t. 80. May 1852,
nom. rej. prop.Type: [icon in] Lindley & Paxton, Paxt. Fl. Gard.: t. 80. May
1852. .
Aechmea distichantha Lem. is a superfluous renaming of Billbergia distichosta¬chya Lem., and is also predated by B. polystachya Lindl. & Paxton. A conservation proposal is needed for nomenclatural stability.
Lemaire (l.c. 1851) announced Billbergia distichostachya (`distichostachia ) as a new taxon that would be described and illustrated later, but in doing so, he briefly described the species and, probably inadvertently, validly published its name. No specimens were cited and none are known to exist. Therefore a neotype is here selected, the same plate as the conserved type of Aechmea distichantha, whereby the homotypic status of both is preserved. Next, Lindley & Paxton (l.c. 1852) proposed B. polystachya for what is clearly the same species, but that name has since never been used. When Lemaire, in 1853, published the full description and illustration of his new taxon, he changed its name to A. distichantha and, at the same time, recog¬nized that it was the same as Lindley & Paxton's B. polystachya. Lindley & Paxton had based their description and illustration on a plant that Jonghe had on display at an exposition at the Royal Horticultural Society in London, whereas Lemaire had at his disposal a plate and dried specimen personally supplied to him by Jonghe.
Aechmea distichantha has been consistently used in important catalogues (e.g. Morren, Cat. Bromel.: 3. 1873), and both regional Brazilian Floras (e.g. Mez in Martius, Fl. Bras. 3(3): 342-343. 1892; Smith in Smithsonian Misc. Collect. 126: 213-215. 1955; Reitz, Bromel. Malaria: 413-417. 1983; Leme & Marigo, Bromel. Brazil. Wild.: 104-105. 1993) and full monographic treatments of the Bromeliaceae (e.g. Beer, Fam. Bromel.: 136. 1856; Baker, Handb. Bromel.: 54. 1889; Mez in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 9: 249-250. 1896; Mez in Engler, Pflanzenr. 100: 149. 1935; and Smith & Downs in Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 14: 1889-1893. 1979). The other two names have never been adopted in any major treatment and their use now would be disruptive both in botany and horticulture. —See St. John 1965
