Tillandsia Curra

Click thumbnails for full size, scaled to a new window.

Tillandsia Curra
concolor x ionantha by Margaret Paterson, 1984.
See also 'Hilda Ariza'. A plant with same parentage by L.Ariza in 1973. Published in JBS 29:217; 30:75
Vic Przetocki 10/19
Ray Clark 11/20
Ray Clark ... "One of Margaret Paterson’s very sturdy hybrids. The clump is about ten years old now."

Bryan Atkins 10/22 (probably T. 'Curra')
Bryan Atkins 10/22 (probably NOT T. 'Curra')
Bryan Atkins ... "It's always confusing when you get multiple plants, same name, all different so I'm hoping y'all might help here with this one."
Here are five plants that I have acquired over the last few years all as T. 'Curra'. Another handsome hybrid from Margaret Paterson of concolor x ionantha. All very different in their own way with some exhibiting more of the concolor characteristics whilst the other half show more of the ionantha characteristics. The question is, are they all T. 'Curra'? Interested in what others grow as T. 'Curra'.
All advice welcome."
Rob Bower ... "Very diverse - are they remakes using different versions of the parents?"
Alfonso Trudu ... "When a cultivar name is applied to the entire grex of a cross between two species or hybrids, then you can get all sorts of variations. It's like when parents create a number of off-springs, some will look like one of them, others in between and others like other relatives. This is why BCR registration has been based on a single plant from a grex and its off-shoots which will hopefully all look like the registered plant. Geoff Lawn can inform us when this new rule started. This means that in older hybrids you can have a significant variation among plants registered under the same name. We have two T. 'Curra' which look very different from each other."
Grant Paterson ... "I am pretty confident the bottom 2 photos are NOT T. 'Curra'
The other (top) 3 look ok for T. 'Curra'.
In my experience anything with T. ionantha in the breed is sensitive to growing conditions and especially light levels and nutrition.
It is nearly impossible to be certain of ID. when plants are grown in different conditions.

Warning - Rant coming up!!!
There is also a number of remakes in circulation done by growers that do not understand the rules and I was recently told by someone that they had remade "Curra" and it looked totally different to the original plants.
The fact is these remakes are not T. 'Curra' but unfortunately some people do not understand the BCR rules (and I might add cannot be told).
This has been for a long time a problem and will never be fixed particularly when plants are popular and not cheap.
I get many requests to confirm the identity of plants that Mum or I have bred and I am generally happy to do so. However, when I question the identity or comment on the growing conditions and how that makes it difficult to confirm ID, accept it for what it is, a comment not criticism. We all love our plants and all think we are doing a good job, but individual opinions are all different.
The fact is we can only give an educated guess as to ID.
An example of a recent conversation when someone wanted confirmation of the identity of a hybrid got nasty. I tried to explain that seed raised from the hybrid even when apparently 2 plants of the same hybrid were crossed (in this case they were clearly not the same plant) it is not to be called the same name. Apparently, we were "Jealous of their hybridising skills and didn’t want them to make money from their plants."
Nothing could be further from the truth, the more the merrier, the plants produced in the example above showed great promise. Just follow the rules and take the time to register them correctly. Who Knows, they may become a future iconic or standard to aspire too.
This remaking of hybrids and riding on existing accepted names is one of the biggest problems we have with identity.
In the Orchid world it is very different with each cross essentially given the same name and individual plants given a cultivar name. For whatever reason, the bromeliad world decided it had to be different and this creates much confusion.
Blaming the hybridist for following the rules at the time of registering achieves nothing and only adds to the problem.
It is true that there are no rules against somebody trying to make hybrids and selling them. Just follow the rules. "I don’t go in for that sort of thing" is not a valid excuse.
But it is unethical to remake an existing cross and try to profit from the existing reputation of a named hybrid by calling it the same name. And even worse to do this with parents or processes that are not certain and produce progeny of dubious quality or that are vastly different to the real thing.
It is even worse with some other genera such as Neoregelia that are so easy to grow. Some exceptional plants have had their reputations sullied by people trying to profit by raising seeds and selling them off as the seed parent.
Also remember that the position of BCR Registrar is voluntary and not paid. In the orchid world it costs and people are paid to look after the databases and keep order and organisation. Geoff does a great job and should be widely applauded for what he does.
Rant over."

Ray Clark ... "Well spoken Grant. You have highlighted several pertinent aspects of our 'hobby'. Some in this group make a legitimate living from this interest of ours and then there is a plethora of others who do not seem to respect the efforts of the few and the conventions that we should all be abiding by."

Bruce Dunstan 05/23

Updated 28/05/23