_Heliamphora_, never_ending?

Jan Schlauer (zxmsl01@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de)
Tue, 11 Jan 1994 20:59:06 +0100

>These (...i.e. "spec.2"...) plants look more like H. nutans
>from Roraima or Kukenam than the spec. 1 plants do, regarding pitcher

Again, why wouldn't you call "spec.1" _H.nutans_ (maybe a new var.)? Is it
just because some of the putative hybrids of this with _H.ionasii_
(="spec.2") do resemble "typical _H.nutans_" even more closely? How then,
if at least some of these "hybrids" were indeed nothing else but _H.nutans_
(_var.nutans_, possibly with fewer individuals in the Ilu-range)?

>I never had any doubts about H. minor records from Chimanta. However
>I wonder why the following Characters never were mentioned, best to
>my knowledge:
>Hair inside the pitchers are very stiff and long (up to 3mm, similar to H.
>ionasii) instead of typical H. minor where Hair are barely visible or
>-sometimes- absent at all.

Let me contribute a bit to your knowledge: STEYERMARK writes (p.312, in
his key): "8. Pubescent upper interior face of the pitcher (excluding
the basal ring of hairs) with some or all of the hairs elongated to 2-5
mm and scattered or relatively distant from each other, or deciduous
over a glabrous surface"

The two species described by this phrase are _H.ionasii_ (!) and _H.minor_
(_f.minor_). Other references to the hairiness of _H.minor_ are on pp. 310,
311 (_H.m.f.laevis_), & c. This is just the opposite of "never mentioned",
isn't it?

>Further the lid seems to have a shape distinct from typical H. minor (more
>>helmet-shaped), however I do not dare to state this from the few pitchers I
>>have at present.

Also, "lid shape" seems to be of very limited use as a distinguishing
character as its dimensions vary considerably (cf. STEYERMARK's table).

>> I think they would have recognized the difference between these and
>> _H.minor_ from Auyan if there was a significant one.
>Not significant???
>The next days I'll take exact measurements of pitchers and send them
>to you via e-mail.

Biologically (not mathematically) significant, i.e. beyond variability
within populations, not between individuals. Let me refer to EDGAR T.
WHERRY (discussing the variability of _S.purpurea_): "Until some one has
the opportunity to work out the significance of these variations, it
seems undesirable to burden the literature with such a series of names"
(BARTONIA 15:3, 1933).

Kind regards