Hi bihai,Well,it looks like a blanchetiana,but to stay completely green in full sun,and not bloom in 5 years is unusual for this species. There are about 8 of them at the bbg,and they bloom and pup often.The few in shade will stay green,and those in bright light or sun always turn a golden orange.They are among the most reliable bloomers there,first the older mom,and then the pups around two years later,so it seems one or two are always in bloom during the year.I've posted a few pics of them in bloom earlier.
I know Lisa has posted pics of her abundant supply of them,so she may have some ideas about yours perhaps being another species of Aechmea..Maybe you should rename yours to "Ae.blanchetiana var.'Kermit'"
[its not easy being green ] ;-(
Bob

its possible its Ice-T ..a pain in the 'A' to bloom and not much color in the leaves

I dunno, that's pretty much what our blanchetianas look like when they get shaded out, but in the sun they color up and have a wider leaf. We have both 'Orange' and 'Lemon', as well as a whole bunch of variable seedlings, some of which are probably hybrids. 'Lemon' is more compact, but 'Orange' and some of the seedlings can get pretty big-- 4-5' tall or more, and that's not including the flower.

There's also a picture on FCBS of Ae. fraudulosa, which looks just like a green-leafed blanchetiana to me. I'm not sure what the difference is other than that, so that could be a possibility.

Bihai, it looks like an under-lit specimen of the plant I see at RSN. As Lisa pointed out, the name A. blanchetiana 'Vermelho' was in error. It's possibly just a form with greener and thinner leaves. The loose way the leaf bases are leads me to that opinion. BUT... the way it divided when you had your accident(?) ;-) sez alot. I've always had to saw through the plant to get an offset. The blanchetianas I've got just don't divide that easily. Hmmm.

I guessed Ice-T because of the deep coloration at the base of the leaves...some of these plants were mis-tagged and shipped a few yrs back as blanchetianas.. maybe we not know until it blooms next century:)

But that's just it, guys...its NOT LOW LIT. Its only in thehouse because of one night of cold weather. It nromally sits out on the sidewalk in full sun, all day, every day. NO SHADE. AT ALL. I don't think its Ae blanchietiana

I agree bihai

It has not flowered possibly because it has not recived enough light. The leaves are too enlongated

Here is a link that might be useful: http://723johnsbromeliads.blogspot.com/

I give up. You guys aren't listening to anything I write. If day in day out full burning Florida sun is not enough light, I don't know what is

Bihai, I heard ya clearly, read where I said it could be a green form of blanchetiana, full sun and all. Maybe you've got a candidate for the apple treatment?

i give up too
cv. of blanchetiana X eurycorymbus - Very large solid green rosette grown mainly for the inflorescence which is a long lasting dense combination of the two

Hi all,well we've had a similar dicussion like this once before [see gonzer's "Ae.blanchetiana Question,-Jul 2/06--on group pg12 now]and Lisa had posted an opinion too,that had a link to visit, that explained the history of Ae.eurycorymbus with A. blanchetiana,and its crosses and Aechmea names. But I could'nt find that posting,as I believe it was a post someone else originated,maybe even me. Anyway,its complicated,and I believe the jist of it was that A. blanchetiana and its many forms,are all based on origination from Ae. eurycorymbus,[if memory serves]and maybe Lisa can come up with that link again.
And bihai,for now you own a large long leaved green brom that SITS IN THE SUN,and does'nt bloom. I rest my case.
Bob

Actually, Bob, Ae. blanchetiana wasn't mentioned in that link, which is odd because almost all the other members of the so-called Gravisia group are (see below).

Bihai, I was listening. I already suggested Ae. fraudulosa as an alternate possibility, and Bob just mentioned Ae. eurycorymbus, which also has long strappy, glossy green leaves and gets even bigger than blanchetiana, so that's another possibility. Many of the other Aechmeas in that group are not glossy, so wouldn't qualify, but there are other big glossy Aechmeas. Without a flower, though, there's not much to go on, not even enough to say definitively that it's not just another form of blanchetiana, which seemed to be the question. As I said, there is a lot of variation in that species.

I've never seen 'Ice-T' so I can't comment, except to say that if it is half fulgens, as FCBS states, I would expect it to be smaller than blanchetiana, not larger.

Here is a link that might be useful: Gravisia group

Thanks Lisa for re-posting that interesting link.I guess I mentally plugged in blanchetiana in lieu of callichroma,that was the mainstay of the Gravisia group article.That was a comprehensive writeup,and alot to remember. I guess we need Bihai's plant to bloom,and some day it will,and we can dicuss it some more.
Bob

It's an interesting article, Bob, but I am not 100% comfortable with Derek's analysis. It's true that members of that group interbreed and intergrade easily, which is why it can be so difficult determining which one you have, but if every specimen he's seen keys out to callichroma, that suggests to me that there may be something wrong with how the key itself is constructed. Perhaps it doesn't make allowances for little differences in measurements, and callichroma is kind of a default option for anything that doesn't fit the others. But to say there's no differences between the inflorescences of mulfordii, eurycorymbus, aquilega etc. in cultivation seems really odd to me. There are obvious visual differences, and all these species have been described, so if he's right that means that either they've been described wrong, or that every specimen in cultivation is some kind of imposter. The first is possible, I guess, but the second seems kind of far-fetched.

Hmmm,..... now I give up too. But I do agree that different kinds of inflorescences to me,should be an indication of a different species. I'm too inexperianced to make the kinds of observations you do.But as I've said before, if some plants look very much alike,its likely the same plant,even with minor differences such as slight color changes or measurements,etc. If some plants look very different,the opposite should be true. But thats just me. I do appreciate your analytical thinking,and I know I and others learn from your experiance. Thanks
Bob