Aechmea robertoseidelii is a distinct taxon when compared to Aechmea triticina. They are not morphologically related. (personal communication with Elton Leme, 02-2014)
Treated as a synonym of Aechmea triticina —SeeWendt 1997
Aechmea roberto-seidelii: the Correct Name for Aechmea guarapariensis by Tania Wendt. in J. Brom. Soc. 57(4): 159-161. 2007
In herbaria and living collection, the name Aechmea guarapariensis E. Pereira & Leme is frequently used to identify plants such as those illustrated in Figures 1,2,7. However, based on the principle of priority of the Botanical Nomenclature Code, the appropriate name must be Aechmea roberto-seidelii E. Pereira. '
The difficulties in the application of the correct name are associated to the complex taxonomic history involving Aechmea roberto-seidelii with Aechmea guarapariensis, Aechmea triticina Mez and Aechmea pineliana (Brong. ex Planch.) Baker.
During my revision of the subgenus Pothuava (Wendt 1997), which includes these species, I considered Aechmea guarapariensis and Aechmea roberto-seidelii as synonyms of Aechmea triticina. My interpretation was based on the similarity among type collections (Figures 3,4,5) and also on the information of the original description that mentioned white or greenish floral coloration for all three taxa.
Aechmea triticina was described by Mez in 1896, but since its discovery it has been poorly understood due to the absence of original drawings and insufficient herbarium material. In 1999, Silva & Leme collected a plant that they considered to be the true Aechmea triticina, which exhibits flowers vividly rose to lilac. They considered that the characteristic of greenish flowers attributed to Glaziou (the collector of type specimens of Aechmea triticina) by Mez (1892) in the protologue is certainly a mistake. Whoever is right or wrong about the color of the flower of the type specimens we will never know. Silva & Leme (1999) have in favor of their argument that probably both collections are from the same region at Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Specimens under the names Aechmea guarapariensis and Aechmea roberto-seidelii occur in Espirito Santo State, with no recorded occurrence in Rio de Janeiro. Flower color and geographic distribution have often been helpful for species delimitation in Bromeliaceae (Faria 2006). The list of synonyms related to Aechmea triticina was not discussed by Silva and Leme (1999), and the name Aechmea guarapariensis came back to be used to designated the specimens with white flowers, which is not related to the current concept of Aechmea triticina with rose flowers, as proposed by Silva & Leme (1999).
Aechmea guarapariensis was described by Pereira & Leme (1984) based on cultivated material previously collected at Guarapari in Espirito Santo State, and Aechmea robertoseidelii was described by Pereira (1972) based on a plant also collected at Guarapari. Since: a) the type specimens (Figures 3,4) are very similar; b) both original descriptions mentioned white color for their petals; and c) both were collected at the same locality; I confirm my first assessment (Wendt 1997) that they are the same species. Based on the priority of publication the name Aechmea roberto-seidelii, this is the correct name. Probably, the name Aechmea roberto-seidelii has been out of use because it was treated as a synonym of Ae. pineliana var minuta by Smith & Downs (1979). Ae. pineliana has yellow petals and floral bracts with long terminal spines (figure 6) that are not observed in Ae. roberto-seidelii (Figure 7). —SeeWendt 2007p. 159-161
