|
"Uncle Derek noticed that in the September 2003 BSI seed list was a Pitcairnia archeri. Have the Americans fallen for the same trick as the Aussies? Carry on reading!
Genus Pitcairnia does not seem to be particularly popular because all plants look like a clump of grass when not in flower. However, those who do grow them know you can be rewarded with somewhat spectacular flowers.
Harry Luther maintains there are two genera here, namely PITCAIRNIA and PEPINIA and in time we may see this accepted by the botanical fraternity at large. The problem with growers who like to have more-or-less correct names on their plants is that the difference is based an seed shape. In South Australia these plants are a challenge because of our dry summers but we can flower them, and sometimes set seed to find out if it is winged or has two tails. Luckily Pepinia (which has mainly winged seed) seem to be rare in Australia so we are saved from this problem - well almost.
Whilst I am critical of the seed offered from known hybrid plants, the B.S.A. seed list does provide an excellent source of new plants at a reasonable cost. Accidental hybridisation of species plants may have occurred but this can be identified when the progeny reach maturity.
The main reason for this article started in Bromeletter March/April 1985 where seed of a Pitcairnia "branched spike" was offered. The next issue this became P. allenii and the following issue back to "branched spike". The seed surely must have been coming from different sources. I don't have easy access to all copies of Bromeletter but in March/April 1987 and in January/February 1988 we had P. archeri.
Seed had been purchased and grown on by Keith Bradtberg here in South Australia but as each batch reached maturity he and I became convinced these were all the same plant. By the way, the inflorescence was not too impressive. P. allenii was easily disposed of because there is no record of this name and although P. archeri is recorded its description was nowhere near OUR plant.
You may recall that I now have a new toy called a dissecting microscope and being retired have more time on my hands. So when P. archeri flowered in Spring 1993, out came the camera and the scalpel. I wrote down details of all the bits and pieces I could find and then tried the key in Smith & Downs "Pitcairnioidiae". I didn't have any seed so had to follow both the keys for Pepinia and for Pitcairnia and came up with two suggestions. One for P. moritziana and the other for P. patentiflora var. subintegra.
| I wrote to Harry Luther with details and photograph. When in real doubt I send Harry the inflorescence and leaf as per instructions and ask for a proper diagnosis, but sometimes I take a short cut. Harry, in turn, keeps me on my toes by sending photocopies of herbarium specimens where he sees the answer and ASSUMES I will! |
 |
To digress, I now have same forty 3-ring binders of written, typed and photocopied detail on Bromeliaceae which has been received and culled from all manner of sources!
So, Harry is not my only problem.
The photocopy I got this time was of a herbarium specimen called Pitcairnia patentiflora var. subintegra AND there in the notes was "Pitcairnia sp. Petals orange. Cultivated in Australia as P. archeri". Boy, did I have a big head for about 5 minutes! In fact, a plant had been sent to Harry for identification in 1986, been identified, but it has taken nearly 8 years to tell you the story.
Once again I was a little confused because Harry had the plant as a Pitcairnia whereas Smith had treated P. patentiflora as a Pepinia. Luckily Keith Bradtberg's plant had set seed and yes, the seed was narrow with two tails - one at each end. So our plant is a Pitcairnia and we will leave the botanical mopping up to Harry. In the meantime may I suggest the keen ones change their labels, AND if you only use the letter "P" for the genus you win both ways!
Please can I finish with a whinge and a plea. I know, of course, the person who was keen enough to seek identification but either didn't want to share this with others or was not keen enough to write in Bromeletter.
So, please, please, if there are others "out there" who have had Harry's "Pearls of Wisdom" and not told anyone else, could they please put pen to paper. This could either be a short note in Bromeletter or by contacting me."
|