How about a pic of the inflorescence when it blooms, Japie? See any signs of cup color yet? Any other distinguishing markings? If it was a form of bahiana I think the whole plant would be hard as wood, and it doesn't look like it is.

It looks a bit like an unidentified species I got from Michael (med-small, stoloniferous, grey scurfy coating, pink cup at anthesis), but it's hard to say for sure. Of course that wouldn't help much if it was the same, but if you can get a flower photo you can send it in for ID.

Lisa, the plant has a bit sturdy leaves but not nearly as hard and thick as those of cruenta. The small spines on the leaf margins are spaced about .5cm apart and are razor sharp. The terminal spine is very soft though. I would not say there's a sign of cup colour, maybe a bit more intense than the rest of the leaves. The stolon is about as thick as my small finger.

{{gwi:438038}}

Hmmm..... viewed from the top I don't think that's the same as my plant. How reliable is this source, i.e. are you sure it's a species and not a hybrid? The only thing it's reminding me of is xNeomea Strawberry! That doesn't have stolons though, so I give up.

I do want to see the bloom, though.

Looks very like my Bahiana which I have attached a photo of. The label on my plant has 2 names on it, the other is Pabstiana. Does anyone know if there is a difference in the plants or what the distinction is. Had a look at Uncle Derek Says on FCBS but I'm still confused.

Here is a link that might be useful:

Blue heeler - N.bahiana and N. pabstiana are the same plant. Neoregelia pabstiana is the old name, and N. bahiana is the amended and accepted current name. There does seem to be slight variations in its form and leaf colour. Under what heading has Unc D written about this on FCBS site? I can't find it.

Japie's N. species D does look similar, but with less-succulent leaves than N. bahiana.

K

Hi Kerry, I have gone back through my notes and it may not have been Uncle D. but there was a reference to Neo. diamantinensis also. Should keep better notes!!!!! How does Neo. Pabst (Geoff Lawn) on FCBS (a cultivar)fit into the picture? It states Neo. pabstii (another name???) is a cultivar of Neo. bahiana. It looks even more like avane's photo. The mystery deepens.

That flower spike looks more like Aechmea than Neo.

Japie, this is my unknown "Neo sp. Brazil". Obviously it's not as pink as yours, but it's been in lower light conditions, so that may not mean much. Still waiting for a bloom! I saw Michael's plant in bloom (or post-bloom) and it had a nice pink center, very unusual. If yours doesn't get the cup color then it's not the same, but the size, texture, stoloniferous habit and degree of openness do seem fairly similar.

{{gwi:438039}}

Re: N. bahiana: if you look up the species in the FCBS index (link) it shows pics of various forms, some of them previously described as other species, i.e. N. pabstiana and N. diamantina. Leme has found that there are no significant morphological differences between these species, so they've all now been lumped into N. bahiana, along with the former N. hatschbachii and N. intermedia. What they all have in common is a tubular, upright habit and thick, succulent leaves, neither of which I am seeing here. Also, none of the bahianas are stoloniferous. It should be easy enough to tell when it blooms, though. N. bahiana is in the subgenus Longipetalopsis, and as such it has very distinctive long-petalled flowers. If it has those, I'll eat my words! ;-)

The name "N. pabstii" gets used a lot, but that's apparently wrong. Leme says "pabstiana", as do most other references. Still, it persists. The FCBS entry for 'Pabst' says: "N. pabstii is now treated as a synonym of N. bahiana. It is sufficiently different vegetatively to be treated as a Cultivar." At any rate, what they're saying is that this former species is now considered a cv. of bahiana, and that's the cv. name they've given it.

Here is a link that might be useful: N. bahiana

The cultivar name Neoregelia bahiana 'Pabst' was registered so this distinctive purplish red-leaved clone (formerly known as Neo. pabstiana) would not lose it's identity once lumped with all the other bahiana clones, as well as those species made synonymous with Neo. bahiana by Leme in 1998. See my article in BSI Journal July-Aug. 2007, p.170.

And here is the plant in flower. Not much change in the cup colour, maybe a little more intense.

{{gwi:438040}}

{{gwi:438041}}

Japie

Its not pabstiana This is pabstiana
{{gwi:438043}}

There's a bit of a pink tinge to the cup, but the whole plant is so pink it's kind of hard to see. I'll have to wait until mine blooms and see if the inflorescence looks the same, but I guess that won't really help much since I still don't know what it is!

What it is not, however, is N. bahiana or any member of the subgenus Longipetalopsis. You remember how long and narrow the petals and corolla tube were on your rubrovittata, Japie? Well, bahiana's in that same group, and the flowers should be similar in shape. Other members of the subgenus are azevedoi, kerryi and mucugensis, so you can check the FCBS pictures of their flowers and get the general idea. Too bad you don't have Leme's book, there as some good pictures of this group in there, but Tropiflora's pic of bahiana shows it a bit better than the ones in the photo index:

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:438035}}