Talk:Bromeliaceae

Identification

Based on the similarity to the photo in the article I suspect these might be bromeliads. If you know, could you add any info you have to the photo's pages? Thanks. DirkvdM 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bromeliad pictures

I have several pictures of Bromeliads from Bohol, Philippines uploaded in Commons. There are 20 varieties posted in my User page here. I have released all these my own work to public domain. Please feel free to use any of the images. It will be a pleasure to contribute to this/these article/s. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genera

Ive noticed Deincanthion, Canistropis, Racinaea, Pepinia, Alcantrea, and,Ursulaea as potential genera to be added to the list, they may not all be valid. This link Bromeliad genera seems relatively current and suggests there are 58 and our list is at 54. As per the current list, Abromeitiella isn't quite a genera, Im not sure if it should be included or not (I say remove it from the list), Brocchinia redirects to a species within the genera, and Streptocalyx redirects to Aechmea (I say remove it). Once we have a comprehensive list of the genera i suggest categorizing them by subfamily. Mmcknight4 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the genera list has all of the abbreviations of the names of the people who designated the species. While this is relevant information for an etymology sentence or section, I think it is unhelpful for clarity in the Genera list. I suggest the names be moved off of Bromeliaceae and put on to the respective genus pages.Mmcknight4 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Deinacanthion, Canistropsis, Racinaea, Pepinia, Alcantarea, and, Ursulaea to the genera list. I don' think Pepinia is agreed upon, it has been classified within Pitcairnia but not all sources say so. There also seems at least to be some debate over whether Sterptocalyx is within Aechmea. The link above actually suggest that there are 57 (I had written 58). If Abromeitiella, Pepinia, and Sterptocalyx, are, in fact, no longer recognized, our list of 59 would be reduced to 56, but then I cant figure out which one is missing. Rather than removing outdated genera, maybe we could stick them at the bottom and say that arent recognized anymore. Mmcknight4 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palms

maybe you should include that they are palms...they have no secondary xylem and therefore considered false wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.201.72 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not animals

A wide variety of organisms take advantage of the pools of water trapped by bromeliads. A study of 209 plants from the Ecuadorian lowlands identified 11,219 animals, representing more than 300 distinct species, many found only on bromeliads; for instance, some species of ostracods, small salamanders approximately 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) in length, tree frogs, and even other species of bromeliads.

This sentence implies that bromeliads were among the 11219 animals found living in bromeliads. Unless bromeliads have been reclassified as animals, something needs to be fixed here. Were there 11219 organisms found? (And, if so, are we only considering large organisms? Presumably bacteria don't count.) Or were there 11219 animals found, as well as other species of bromeliads? Pburka (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for adding species stubs

I have a fairly extensive database of bromeliad species and cultivars and I've started to create a bot that can add articles for those species that have no stub. There are approximately 3300 species that have no stub. I have created about 100 species articles by hand so now there are about 150 species articles which is rather sparse.

This bot will not edit any existing articles. It will only create articles where there is a link to the article but no article has been created. I've updated the species lists for all genera so there are links to all species described in Harry Luther's Binomial List, Eleventh Edition.

Bromels (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age And Reproduction

When certain Bromiliads flower, The plant dies, only to grow again from the root system, How long do these root systems last? And how do they spread their seeds? if they have any that is.142.162.199.94 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bromeliaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PoWO and EoB differences

For future reference, there are some differences in the genera recognized by Plants of the World Online (PoWO) and the Encyclopaedia of Bromeliads (EoB) as of November 2022. Our articles for non-hybrid genera generally follow EoB.

Brewcaria L.B.Sm., Steyerm. & H.Rob. – accepted by EoB, syn. of Navia in PoWO
Cryptbergia – treated as a normal genus by EoB, but as × Cryptbergia R.G.Wilson & C.L.Wilson by PoWO (which appears to be correct as it's Cryptanthus × Billbergia)
Josemania W.Till & Barfuss – accepted by EoB, syn. of Cipuropsis in PoWO
Mezobromelia L.B.Sm. – accepted by EoB, syn. of Cipuropsis in PoWO
× Niduregelia Leme – not in EoB, accepted nothogenus in PoWO
Pseudaechmea L.B.Sm. & Read – accepted by EoB, syn. of Billbergia in PoWO
Ursulaea Read & H.U.Baensch – accepted by EoB, syn. of Aechmea in PoWO

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: If following EoB, shouldn't Ayensua (monotypic A. uaipanensis) be moved to Brocchinia uaipanensis, with appropriate changes? Although the article is sourced and accurate as it is. — Jts1882 | talk 13:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: whoops, I missed this one (in a separate list in my spreadsheet as acceptance is the other way round).

However, I'm inclined now to follow EoB. Givnish et al. (2007) says "Monotypic Ayensua is embedded within Brocchinia" and sinks it, a position maintained in Givnish et al. (2011), which included "Brocchinia uiapanensis" in its analysis, and Givnish (2016). Google Scholar can't find any later phylogenetic studies, so I'm not sure why PoWO maintains the genus: the only reference given in PoWO is to Govaerts (1995). Maybe I'll ask Rafaël Govaerts. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: Rafaël Govaerts agrees that Ayensua shouldn't be accepted, so I expect this to show in PoWO, maybe next week. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: PoWO was updated on Monday 5 December to show Ayensua as a synonym, so now moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]