Portea petropolitana var extensa versus Portea orthopoda - an enigma by D Butcher Aug 2009
Many people grow this variety in Australia and would consider they know what it looks like. Alas, two Brazilian taxonomists have been playing ‘Change names’ without giving reasons for such a change. What has been suggested is that it was unnecessary for Lyman Smith to name Foster 196 as Portea petropolitana var extensa but should have resurrected Streptocalyx orthopoda to Portea orthopoda in its place
Let us look at a bit of history
30. Streptocalyx orthopoda, Baker [Bromeliaceae] Kew Bull. 198. 1892
acaulis, foliis loratis subcoriaceis basi valde dilatatis obscure lepidotis apice rotundatis cuspidatis, spinis marginalibus corneis nigro-castaneis inferioribus crebris magnis superioribus sensim minoribus sparsioribus, floribus in paniculam amplam thyrsoideam dispositis ramis corymbosis, bracteis primariis parvis lanceolatis, pedicellis elongatis strictis, ovario oblongo nudo, sepalis coriaceis oblongo-lanceolatis mncronatis ovario longioribus, petalis parvis angustis.
Rio Janeiro, Glaziou 18565.
Folia bipedalia medio 12-14 lin. lata, basi dilatato oblongo 6-7 poll. longo, 4 poll. late. Panicula pedalis, pedicellis inferioribus 1˝-2 poll. longis. Calyx (ovario infero incluso) 10 lin. longus.
Near S. podantha, Baker Handb., Brom. p. 32, (now accepted as being Portea petropolitana var. petropolitana) another discovery of Dr. Glaziou’s from which it may easily be recognised by its broad thyrsoid panicle with corymbose branches, long erecto-patent pedicels, and oblongo-lanceolate sepals longer than the ovary.
translated by Butcher
Plant without stem,
Leaves straplike subcoriaceous base clearly dilated obscure lepidote tip rounded cuspidate, spines on the edges horny dark chestnut brown lower ones close large upper ones gradually smaller and more sparse,
Flowers in an ample thyrsoid panicle with corymbose branches,
Primary bracts small lanceolate,
pedicels elongate erect,
ovary oblong glabrous,
sepals coriaceous oblong-lanceolate mucronate longer than the ovary,
petals a little narrowed.
Rio Janeiro, Glaziou 18565.
Leaves 2ft long, at the middle about 1 in. wide, base dilated oblong 6-7 in. long, 4 in. wide. Panicle 1ft long, lower pedicels 1˝-2 in. long. Calyx (including the inferior ovary) just under 1 in. long.
See herbarium specimen and compare with herbarium specimen of Portea noettigii.
Mez in 1935 treated this species as a synonym of Portea noettigii. Smith in 1943 in Arq. Bot. S Paulo II. I: 113. 1943 concurred with this move but treated it at varietal level when he described Portea petropolitana var. extensa.
I can see little difference between the two herbarium specimens of P. noettigii ( Glaziou 18564 at Kew) and P. orthopoda ( Glaziou 18565 at Kew) but a great deal of difference between the herbarium specimen for Portea petropolitana var. extensa. ( Foster196 GH). You will also note on the New York specimen ( Foster 196) for Portea petropolitana var extensa a determination by Coffani-Nunes in 2005 that confirms the name with no mention of P. orthopoda. There is no notation on the holotype held at Harvard! It is no wonder I am confused!
Because this seems in contradiction to that found by Coffani-Nunes in preparing his thesis by resurrecting ‘orthopoda’ to Portea orthopoda and placing Portea petropolitana var extensa under synonymy, I asked both Coffani-Nunes and Wanderley for advice. I was ignored, so despite the 2008 binomial listing accepting this move I still await some explanation. Any other clues would be appreciated.
17 Aug 2009
From: "Harry Luther"
To: "derek butcher"
Dear Derek; there are some habit differences in these 3 taxa. My problem has always been between P.p. var noettigii and P. silveirae, the latter supposedly very furfuraceous. A good example of Portea petro is P. 'Jungles',( an unregistered cultivar name – Butcher) we all know the type clone of var. extensa(orthopoda), both have different foliage and conformation. HEL
PS All three specimens are orthopoda
Summary by Butcher 9/2009
We are now lead to believe that Portea petropolitana var. petropolitana, Portea petropolitana var noettigii, and Portea orthopoda are different but nobody will say how different, even Coffani-Nunes and Wanderley! Are they based on relative lengths of branch or pedicel or not? To identify ‘noettigii’ we are left with a plate and description. I would prefer to follow Smith and Mez in that ‘noettigii’ is synonymous with ‘orthopoda’ rather than an unproven statement by a taxonomist new to the job.
None of the current European taxonomists are prepared to accept the move at the present time.
My philosophy is when in doubt leave it as the status quo. This has been further strengthened these days of computer access to original documents where I have been able to prove wrong assumptions made in the past regarding synonyms etc. Here we do not even have access to such documents.
Comment by Butcher 2010.
New genus name accepted in Binomials 12, 2010. Is this an accepted publication? If not, where is the publication in Brazil? I think not because the IPNI have not recorded the change of name. Elton Leme advises it is not the intention of the writers to actually publish!
