In the late 1980's I acquired a Billbergia that was odd to say the least. It was some 80 cm long and made up of just 3 leaves. It could be described as an extra long toilet roll but this time green with strong white bands. It was called Billbergia fosteriana. Eventually it flowered but it did not resemble any Billbergia saundersii that I had seen but it did link to the description of B. fosteriana given in Smith and Downs page1996.
Why did the synonymy occur?
A clue appears in Smith and Downs page 1994 under Billbergia chlorosticta (the old name for B. saundersii) where we see the note, "Too late to re-organise 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"
The problem is that we do not know what these characters were and I have been asking what they are for the last 8 years!
Let us see what differences I found between the two formal descriptions and remember that my plant agreed with the description of B. fosteriana.
| Leaves | 5-7, white spotted | 3-4, white crossbanded |
| Scape bracts | large lanceolate red | rose fading to stramineous by anthesis |
| Inflorescence | sub-pendulous | erect |
| Floral bracts | lower ones like scape bracts | all much shorter than pedicels |
| Sepals | red | lavender |
| Petals | greenish-yellow with dark blue apex | green with blue green apex |
| lateral | with two fimbriate scales at base | with two fimbriate scales at base AND two dentate folds |
Clearly there are differences which if not acceptable at species level should be valid at varietal. Until such time as the Botanists come up with a meaningful solution I suggest you keep B. fosteriana on the name tag if it is like the photographs shown.
"
