Mike, by "primary hybrid", do you mean a 2 species cross? Hmmmmmm........... I was going to say Ae. aculeatosepala but now you've thrown me. If not that, then maybe something with Ae. nudicaulis in it?

Yep, species X species cross.

I should have guessed that you would come right out with the answer, or at least part of it. This guy is half Ae. aculeatosepala.

And here I thought that would be the tough parent to figure out!

Well, it just looks like aculeatosepala-- the shape of the leaves, the little spines and way the throat clenches up.

Okay, crossed with another Aechmea? And presumeably not nudicaulis, so.......... the spots remind me of a cross I did with caudata 'Freckles', but orlandiana also comes to mind.

Or is it bigeneric?

When I first looked at the photo it reminded me of Neoregelia tarapotoensis. But then one parent has already been revealed as an aechmea. If it is a bigeneric, Neo. tarapotoensis (which I grow) would be my guess for the other parent. If it's an aechmea primary hybrid, I give up on the other parent.

Well done, Lisa, on the A. aculeatosepala parent I.D.!

Cheers,
Kerry

Now where's the fun in everyone getting it right on their first guess?? The other parent is Neo. tarapotoensis! You guys are too good.

I originally picked this up thinking it was just Neo. tarapotoensis, with the label reading "Neo. tarapotoensis aculeato sepala". When I searched online for "aculeato sepala" I found nothing and assumed maybe it was a cultivar of Neo. tarapotoensis. I even rationalized the reddish base as probably being the cultivar's defining characteristic.

Fast forward to a couple days ago when I was mounting the plant. I searched again and this time tried "aculeatosepala". Then of course the whole thing unraveled from there.

So apparently this was probably not considered bigeneric when it was made, but now since Neo. aculeatosepala is Ae. aculeatosepala, it is.

What a weird cross huh? Anyone ever heard of it? I've got to contact the person I got it from to confirm and get more info if they have any. I can clearly see the influence from both parents, pretty neat.

Kerry, does your tarapotoensis look exactly like the one pictured on FCBS? Do you grow it in sun or shade? What about showing us a picture of it?

Mike, your plant looks very nice. It might be a 'weird' cross, but in my eyes it works beautiful! That is one bi-generic that I would not mind having!!!

Japie

Good call, Kerry! That was going to be my next guess if Mike said it was bigeneric, but I got thrown off by the Aechmea thing. I still have a hard time thinking of aculeatosepala as an Aechmea.

By the way the tag is written, Mike, I'm wondering if it really is a hybrid, though. It sure looks just like the N. tarapotoensis on FCBS. How long are the stolons?

This goes back to my initial confusion about aculeatosepala because there seem to be either two forms of it, or two different plants being sold under that name. The one I originally had looked just like the one on FCBS (see link below), scurfy, with flaring leaves and fairly prominent spines. My guess was based on that plant. You can see the similarity in form to N. tarapotoensis, and they were originally considered close relatives.

Then I got this other glossy pale green thing (wild-collected) from a friend. We both assumed it was a Neo, but it matches what Michael's and Tropiflora are selling as Ae. aculeatosepala:

{{gwi:438752}}

I'm still trying to unravel this. I asked both Harry Luther and Uncle Derek about it but they just asked me what the flower looks like, and I haven't seen a bloom on either one, and I lost the original clone several years ago anyway.

Now I'm wondering if the scurfy FCBS clone might actually be a form of N. tarapotoensis, as your tag suggests, Mike, and the true Ae. aculeatosepala is the glossy, less spiny one in my photo above. Or maybe whoever wrote the tag was as confused as I am and put down two possibilities. With no X in there, I'm not convinced it's a hybrid, but it could be.

Both species were previously part of a subgenus known as Hylaeicum, which I am convinced will eventually be split off from Neoregelia into a seperate genus. I still don't get why aculeatosepala was removed from there and put into Aechmea. This is an instance where DNA analysis would be very helpful.

Sorry if I confused you just when you thought you had it all figured out! Where did you get it from? Maybe you can track the info back from there.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ae. aculeatosepala on FCBS

I'm not entirely convinced that it's a hybrid either, which is party why I wanted to see what you guys thought it might be. The tag could very well have meant X or Y.

This plant certainly has more red to it than the Neo. tarapotoensis picture on FCBS, and will color up a bit more when summer comes around. Who knows what condition the plant in the FCBS photo was grown under.

I got the plant from a member of the BSBC, so I'll have to shoot them an e-mail to see if they have any other info. From what I remember the stolons weren't exceptionally long, so who knows. Like you mentioned, we may just have to wait for a flower.

Whatever it is, I'm a fan. But I sure would like a proper name.

Here is a link that might be useful: FCBS: Neo. tarapotoensis

Here are a couple of photos of my N. tarapotoensis - crikey! can anyone pronounce this??
If you look carefully, you can see the young stoloniferous pups. The stolons are not as long as A. aculeatosepala, but still quite long.

{{gwi:438754}}

{{gwi:438756}}

I have to confess I have not owned this brom long - I bought it about 6 months ago, and photographed it flowering in late November last.
Japie, I think it was grown in shade similar to green-leaved vriesea conditions, before I bought it. Since then, I have grown it in my shade house which has 70% shade cloth, but still quite bright. The reddish flush at the base of the leaves, as seen more in Mike's photo, has deepened since then, as seen in the next photos which I took today (2 months later). I have not fertilised it, and it is growing more compactly. Lots of pups coming on - hooray! I love this little species.

{{gwi:438757}}

{{gwi:438759}}

These 2 photos show my young A. aculeatosepala with pup growing in bright light, yet to flower. Does it look like either of yours Lisa?

{{gwi:438761}}

{{gwi:438762}}

Mike, this last photo shows the 2 possible parents of your little beauty - the N. tarapotoensis looks much bigger because it is in the foreground. I also tend to think yours might be the species neo, rather than a hybrid.

{{gwi:438763}}

Cheers,
Kerry

Kerry, thanks for showing your tarapotoensis. Very nice clumping plants! Here is what my A aculeatosepala looks like. Looks like I am growing it a bit too hard but I see yours also tend to get some dead leaf tips. The pup that mine produced is on a relatively short stolon - about 15cm - and the spines on my plant also do not look as pronounced as yours. Maybe I must take my plant off that tree truck and pot it up and give it a bit more shade. At the moment, it gets sun from about mid day intill sundown - winter and summer.

Japie
{{gwi:438764}}
{{gwi:438765}}

Here is Victoria Padilla's photo of (then) N. aculeatosepala from her second book, "The Colorful Bromeliads", and this is her description:

"Dr. Werner Rauh found this interesting species in 1973 growing on trees near the town of Limon, Ecuador, at an altitude of 3,600 feet. Like N. pendula it is a stoloniferous plant, the 6-inch funnel-shaped rosettes, hanging like mobiles from brown, scaly, pendulous stolons, 12 to 20 inches long. The few brownish leaves, which open to make a rosette 4 inches across, are broadly rounded and are edged with prominent dark spines. The dense inflorescence, about an inch in diameter, consists of a cluster of white-petaled flowers. The center turns red at blooming time. The name aculeatosepala refers to the spines on the sepals.

Although this species is in cultivation, it is still a comparatively rare plant because of the difficulty in maintaining it under artificial conditions."

{{gwi:438766}}

It's hard to see the shape of the flowers in the photo, but they do appear more closed and Aechmea-like than Kerry's wide-open tarapotoensis flowers. Also, the mention of spines on the sepals is significant, as that is an Aechmea characteristic too, so that would explain the reclassification.

Has anyone seen the flowers on the smooth green form? That might help clear up the mystery. I think my friend collected it in Brazil, but she has passed away now so I can't ask her. She had a number of unidentified broms from a trip to Rio de Janeiro state with Roberto Burle-Marx, and I'm not aware of any other South American collecting trips she took. Of course it's possible that it was something in Sr. Burle-Marx's collection that he gave to her, which means it could have been collected anywhere.

At any rate, the two seem quite different to me. Japie, I think yours is the same as mine. I have mine under 40% shade so I've never seen a red flush on it, but you can see the browned tips in the photo. The length of the stolons is not always consistant, so it's possible that either the first ones come out short and then get longer as a clump develops, or perhaps it could be a reflection of our old friend, growing conditions (i.e. temperature fluctuations)?

Kerry, yours doesn't look quite like either one, but seems closer to the Padilla/FCBS/scurfy form. The one I had looked like the one in the link below, and as Padilla's description implies, it was very difficult to grow, and eventually gave up on me. The green one, in contrast, grows like a weed!

BTW, I question Padilla's statement that it turns red at flowering. Judging by Wally Berg's habitat photo on FCBS (use my previous link in the posting above), it is all red all the time under the right conditions. I think that some of what she wrote in her books must have been based on hearsay and incorrect identification, because there are a few errors in there. Before the Baensch book came along, hers were the best references around, though. I had aculeatosepala on my wish list for years based on her photo, so when I finally came across a single pup on the member's sale table at the Orlando World conference, I grabbed it like a thief! It wasn't cheap, either! I wonder if it could have come from Wally Berg?

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:438747}}

So, Mike, have you decided what your little beauty is yet?

Japie, thanks for showing your A. aculeatosepala. It certainly has a fuller shape and less obvious spines than mine. I'm not sure if growing it in more shade will change the spines - but the brown leaf tips might decrease? I can live with the brown tips, if the form is still at its optimum. I know my (supposed)A.aculeatosepala was greener when I bought it, and has flushed pinkish in the brighter conditions.

Lisa, that's all very interesting about the controversy over this species. Thanks for sharing it with us. Yes I agree mine looks the closest to Padilla/fcbs scurfy form - but still not quite.... Maybe if I keep growing mine in very bright light, it will turn the deep pink as seen in Padilla's photo, and become 'scurfier'?
LOL at you grabbing that single pup like a thief! I did the same when I saw the only plant for sale at our Aust. Brom Conference. Just about tripped over myself trying to grab it! (it was AUD$15) Admittedly, it's a rather plain-looking thing, and I was glad that others in front of me were unaware of its rarity/lack of availability. No-one else could understand what I was so excited about. It sure pays to do one's research.
I think the seller was Peter Tristram, who has introduced many interesting brom species in Australia. He has mostly grown the species broms by imported seed, and is a very reliable and knowledgeable source. He has done some great hybridising too. He is also responsible for the V. ospinae var. gruberi cultivar 'Tiger Tim', as featured in Steen's latest book.
I love Padilla's descriptions of cultivation conditions, and I suppose at the time she wrote her books the information was correct - but yes, there are now a few obvious anomalies. I agree the Baensch book is the best reference for growing conditions, habitat, large range of varieties with excellent photos/layout - but even some of their info has now been superseded. I assume this is inevitable, as new information continues to surface through the hard work of dedicated botanists/enthusiasts.
I take my hat off to them!

Cheers,
Kerry

Kerry-

I think our plants could be twins! Your's definitely look like they are taking on the same form/shape as mine. Mine has to be a Neo. tarapotoensis, well until I hear otherwise I guess! I sure wish it would pup, but then again I haven't had it too long either and it has yet to flower.

I e-mailed Colleen from the BSBC and she said she's look into it and get back to me. I'll let you know if she tracks down any other info.

Mine gets a few hours of direct sun in the late afternoon, which probably accounts for some of the slight difference in color.

Well during a quick inspection today I noticed that it's flowering. It's "throat" is so narrow I'm not sure I can get in there and do anything with it. I sure will give it a try.

{{gwi:438767}}