Officially treated as a synonym of B. saundersii with no reasons given. Not only has the unique plant format seem to have been ignored but the 2 dentate folds that I have found in B. fosteriana but not in alleged B. saundersii. It should remain as a species or a variety of B. saundersii . If not then at cultivar status and if so what name would be used by growers of this plant?
Binomials 10, 2006, p11 treated as species in own right – no reasons given
Billbergia fosteriana L.B. Smith by Derek Butcher Sth Australia in Bromeletter 30(2): 10-11. 1992
Have you given up changing labels on your B. chlorosticta to B. saundersii? Well, how about a few more complications for you to digest while waiting for the botanists to come up with a well presented reasoning for this change.
You can blame this article on Bill Morris, because he was the one who started me on this particular crusade. If you are after unusual non-Tillandsioideae species then you cannot go past Bill Morris's collection. Well, this was where I obtained a thin tubular plant some 80cm long and made up with just three leaves. Almost like an extra long toilet-roll tube, but this time green with strong white bands. The plant was named B. fosteriana. Recently it flowered and is the cause of this article because when any new plant flowers in my collection, out come the reference books.
Luther's list had "lost" B. fosteriana. But Franklin's tapes came to the rescue because B. fosteriana had been lost in synonymy under B. saundersii. Who had done this dirty deed without telling us about it? There is a clue in Smith and Downs Flora Neotropica page 1994 where it states....
"Note. Too late to reorganize our manuscript. Robert W. Read has shown with living material that the characters used to separate B. debilis and B. fosteriana from the earlier B. chlorosticta are not valid."
B. fosteriana is described in Smith & Downs and I dutifully checked off all the criteria given, even to the 2 fimbriate scales at the petal base plus the 2 dentate lateral folds above them.The only thing that did not tally was the sepals which are described as lavender.This colour is true if you scrape off the thick white flocculose covering. This white flocculose covering is mentioned in the description of B. debilis but not in B. chlorosticta or B. fosteriana.
To add further fuel to the fire we can refer to the key an page 1976 where our three plants are within step 13, "inflorescence densely lepidote except the petals". From this can we assume that sepals are "flocculose" despite it not being in the description? Were they innocent omissions? Can a similar conclusion be made for the 2 dentate lateral folds which can be clearly seen with the naked eye and even with bifocals? This phenomenon is reported for B. fosteriana but not for either B. chlorosticta or debilis ! I do have a copy of Baker's "The Bromeliaceae" printed in 1889 and I wondered what was said under B. saundersii - yes, that was its name in those faraway days. I quote, "Leaves thinly white lepidote beneath with copious white spots AND white transverse bands".I put the 'AND' in capitals because this latter detail is omitted from the description in Smith and Downs page 1994, admittedly under the name of B. chlorosticta ! It has been said that Botany is as much an Art as a Science and I am slowly getting the messaqe.
Meanwhile, I'll be leaving B. fosteriana on my label waiting for a re-write of B. saundersii to include, I hope, clear varieties. After all, what are the dentate lateral folds clearly shown in the attached line drawing, and do they have diagnostic significance? (Butcher's notes 2008)
by Derek Butcher Sth Australia in Bromeletter 30(2): 10-11. 1992
Have you given up changing labels on your B. chlorosticta to B. saundersii? Well, how about a few more complications for you to digest while waiting for the botanists to come up with a well presented reasoning for this change.
You can blame this article on Bill Morris, because he was the one who started me on this particular crusade. If you are after unusual non-Tillandsioideae species then you cannot go past Bill Morris's collection. Well, this was where I obtained a thin tubular plant some 80cm long and made up with just three leaves. Almost like an extra long toilet-roll tube, but this time green with strong white bands. The plant was named B. fosteriana. Recently it flowered and is the cause of this article because when any new plant flowers in my collection, out come the reference books.
Luther's list had "lost" B. fosteriana. But Franklin's tapes came to the rescue because B. fosteriana had been lost in synonymy under B. saundersii. Who had done this dirty deed without telling us about it? There is a clue in Smith and Downs Flora Neotropica page 1994 where it states....
"Note. Too late to reorganize our manuscript. Robert W. Read has shown with living material that the characters used to separate B. debilis and B. fosteriana from the earlier B. chlorosticta are not valid."
B. fosteriana is described in Smith & Downs and I dutifully checked off all the criteria given, even to the 2 fimbriate scales at the petal base plus the 2 dentate lateral folds above them.The only thing that did not tally was the sepals which are described as lavender.This colour is true if you scrape off the thick white flocculose covering. This white flocculose covering is mentioned in the description of B. debilis but not in B. chlorosticta or B. fosteriana.
To add further fuel to the fire we can refer to the key an page 1976 where our three plants are within step 13, "inflorescence densely lepidote except the petals". From this can we assume that sepals are "flocculose" despite it not being in the description? Were they innocent omissions? Can a similar conclusion be made for the 2 dentate lateral folds which can be clearly seen with the naked eye and even with bifocals? This phenomenon is reported for B. fosteriana but not for either B. chlorosticta or debilis ! I do have a copy of Baker's "The Bromeliaceae" printed in 1889 and I wondered what was said under B. saundersii - yes, that was its name in those faraway days. I quote, "Leaves thinly white lepidote beneath with copious white spots AND white transverse bands".I put the 'AND' in capitals because this latter detail is omitted from the description in Smith and Downs page 1994, admittedly under the name of B. chlorosticta ! It has been said that Botany is as much an Art as a Science and I am slowly getting the messaqe.
Meanwhile, I'll be leaving B. fosteriana on my label waiting for a re-write of B. saundersii to include, I hope, clear varieties. After all, what are the dentate lateral folds clearly shown in the attached line drawing, and do they have diagnostic significance? —SeeBromeletter