At that time the only difference I could find between the first two was that in N. rutilans the primary bracts are entire but lightly toothed in N.regelioides. Note that Elton Leme probably will be relegating N. regelioides to synonymy under N. rutilans when his book on Nidularium is published.
(*NOTE:The book on Nidularium by Elton Leme has now been published and regelioides is indeed a synonym of rutilans.)
Nidularium 'Leprosa' was a bit harder to find. It was not in "Bromelioideae" in Flora Neotropica (1979) nor was it in Padilla's "International Check List" (1979). The only reference was in Brian Smith's Manuscript of Bromeliad Hybrids and Cultivars (1984). Even the hybridist was unknown but the name persists! The parents were given as Nidularium regelioides and N. rosulatum.
Forever the doubting Thomas I wonder whether N. rosulatum was father. This plant is not common in collections and even Lyman B Smith confused it with N. fulgens at one time! Nidularium 'Leprosa' seems to have a limited area of circulation because it is only reported from California and has not been exported to Australia as far as I am aware. Could it be just a selfing of Nidularium regelioides? This is especially true if it does eventuate that this becomes included under Nidularium rutilans. We have certainly found in Australia that spotting on the leaves for N. rutilans can vary widely with the more heavily spotted being favoured. All the N.rutilans I have checked seem to be correctly named so I wonder whether the name of 'Leprosa' should have been given.
I am hoping that this provocative statement will get some reaction so that we can find out what the true N. 'Leprosa' is known to all. A photograph would be fantastic. "
