BOTANICAL MUSEUM LEAFLETS 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 6, 1939 
Vol. 7, No. 5 
NOTES ON THE TAXONOMY OF ANANAS 
AND PSEUDANANAS 
BY 
Lyman B. Smith 
There is no substitute for careful field observation 
in attacking taxonomic problems. This axiom is nowhere 
more evident than in the problems presented by Ananas 
and Pseudananas. First, opinion has wavered as to the 
generic distinction of Pseudananas , its single species be¬ 
ing proposed originally as an Ananas, raised to a section 
by Hassler and to a genus by Harms, reduced to Ananas 
by Mez, and here raised to a genus again. Similarly, the 
species of Ananas have had extremely varied treatment. 
Numerous slight forms of A.comosus have been proposed 
as species and the wild pineapples have been viewed dif¬ 
ferently by each succeeding author. From the evidence 
of herbarium specimens I had felt that Ananas was a 
monotypic genus. Copious field evidence has convinced 
me to the contrary. 
In late 1938 and early 1939, Dr. K.F. Baker and Dr. 
J.L. Collins made an extensive field survey of Ananas 
and Pseudananas in South America for the Experiment 
Station of the Pineapple Producers Cooperative Associ¬ 
ation of Hawaii. During the same trip they visited sev¬ 
eral botanical institutions and evaluated names of Ananas 
current in parts of South America but not understood else¬ 
where. More particularly they clarified the various n ames 
[73] 
