"Uncle Derek Says"

Tillandsia castellanii

" This is shown in the Bromeliad Cultivar Registry as a "natural" hybrid between T. retorta and T. capillaris. However, on checking L.B.Smith's original description in Contr. Gray Herb. 104:80 1934 we see that he considered the plant to be a species. In Flora Neotropica page 884 L.B. Smith still considered it a species even though he quoted Osten as believing it to be a hybrid between T. retorta and T. capillaris forma incana. If you refer to L.B. Smith's comments under T. retorta (Contr. Gray Herb. 105: 202 1935) you will read "Osten 13478 was collected between specimens of T. retorta (Osten13479) and T. castellanii (Osten13474) and is evidently a hybrid between the two." This muddies the water a little although it does suggest that there are clear distinctions between T. retorta and T. castellanii. Harry Luther's Binomial Listing treats T. castellanii as a species as too did Walter Till when he did his review of the sub-genus Diaphoranthema in 1992. I suggest you delete the reference to T. castellanii in the Cultivar Registry. Why am I telling you this? I have proved to myself that self-set seed on T. castellanii grows true to type and does not show hybrid tendencies. BUT I also have a plant labelled T. retorta x T. capillaris (Collected by Walter Till as WT5187). This plant does not resemble T. castellanii but is very similar to T. retorta although smaller. Self-set seed produces plants identical to the parent and does not show hybrid tendencies!! Natural hybrids are rarely described by Botanists so I have nothing to check against or even to suggest that T. capillaris is involved somewhere. A photograph of this WT5187 is shown under the species T. retorta, and is also shown here. "

T. retorta x capillaris WT5187

Photo Credits:
T. retorta x capillaris WT5187 - Derek Butcher