Your lucid list is very useful. Thank you very much.
Here are some (sorry, non-horticultural) comments:
>1 N.adnata Tamin & Hotta ex Schlauer & Nerz.
> Illustration? Jan will you be illustrating this in Blumea?
No. A fair illustration is included in TAMIN & HOTTA4s original
publication. NB: I would rather see this name published validly before it
is spread through the internet ;-)
>5 N.aristolochioides spec.nov. Mt.Kerinci, Sumatra.
> Description and illustration.
> Fantastic pitchers with laterally opening mouths.
Are you really sure? I have seen Meijer 7426, and it seems the pitchers are
just compressed along their longitudinal axes. I think the peristome is
still rather horizontal in vivo (do not forget it functions as a gliding
zone, directing prey *into* the pitchers, not past them!). Do you know this
taxon as a living plant?
>8 N.bongso Korth.
> to incl. N.carunculata.
I am not sure if all colleagues will agree. I do accept it (however, I have
not seen enough authentic material to be able to propose this myself).
>11 N.brachycarpa Merril
Is it different from _N.philippinensis_?
>13 N.burkeii Mast.
I think the correct orthography should be _N.burkei_ ("e" is a vowel).
>19 N.diatas spec.nov.
> Description, Illustration.
> Northern Sumatra. Higher altitude, more woody than N.densiflora,
>different pitcher shape.
I have attributed this to _N.singalana_ s.lat., but it is certainly a
rather striking population (with some even more striking individuals, but
cf. also the very abnormal pitchers of _N.spectabilis_ in some material
>24 N.glabratus Turnbull & Middleton
"glabrata", _Nepenthes_ is female!
>25 N.gracilis Korth.
> to incl. N.neglecta
Oh, really?! I think _N.neglecta_ belongs to the _N.hirsuta_-complex
(together with _N.leptochila_ and _N.mollis_).
>27 N.gymnamphora Reinw. ex Nees
>27a N.gymnamphora ssp. tomentella (Becc.) stat.nov. - Sumatran subspecies
> Description, Illustration. This differs in its lower pitcher
> form, and its reluctance (?) to produce upper pitchers. A neat
> geographical split makes the construction of a sub-species
> delimitation seem like a natural thing to do. What do the rest
> of you think?
> Incl. N.rosulata, p.p.N.pectinata (viz. Schlauer & Nerz in press)
I do agree. However, I do not know if the genus is understood sufficiently
to propose infraspecific classification. If you think so, I have some
27b: Did you ever see material of _N.gymnamphora_ from S Borneo? Is this
>28 N.hamatus Turnbull & Middleton
"hamata", _Nepenthes_ is still female!
> The priority of this name over N.dentata by 21 days is in fact in
> serious doubt, since the `preprinted' Reinwardtia issue was
> technically not `freely available' in terms of the Botanical
> Code. However since it has entered more common usage (?) we will
> probably retain it. What do Nepenthes growers feel about this ?
I do not know what _Nepenthes_ growers do think about it. Some of them even
suspect _N.hamata_ to represent a hybrid involving the "good" species
N.dentata, but as TURNBULL & MIDDLETON do include the type of N.dentata as
a paratype of their _N.hamata_, I think this kind of thought is not
necessarily too significant. However, the question of priority should
indeed be considered thoroughly. I have not been able to determine when the
REINWARDTIA paper was really published effectively. I accept it was
published *after* KURATA4s paper in the JOURNAL OF THE INSECTIVOROUS PLANT
SOCIETY (JAPAN), and *before* his paper in GARDEN4S BULLETIN (SINGAPORE).
>32 N.infundibuliformis Turnbull & Middleton
Should, IMHO (cf. comment under no.28), be replaced by the name _N.eymae_
>34 N.junghunii Ridl.
> Emended description, Illustration.
A rather dubious species based on insufficient specimens. Has this been
recollected in recent time?
>46 N.mollis Dans.
> Little known. No pitchers.
I suspect it could be related to _N.hirsuta_.
>50 N.northiana Hook.f.
> to incl. N.decurrens
Very good! ADAM, WILCOCK & SWAINE do think the same. So do I. Have you been
able to spot the locus classicus of N.decurrens ("Barram")? As far as I
know this is a fairly long river, and possibly the name of some geographic
>56 N.rafflesiana Jack
It does not include:
>57 N.rajah Hook.f.
, does it? I fear some text has been deleted here... ;-)
>Apart from changes to the Thai taxa(...)
What do you want to change in Indochina? How about SCHMID-HOLLINGER?