NEPENTHES comments for Flora Malesiana

Jan Schlauer (
Fri, 9 Sep 1994 16:34:43 +0100

Dear Matthew,

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_, 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
from G.Bandahara!).

>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
further suggestions...

27b: Did you ever see material of _N.gymnamphora_ from S Borneo? Is this
perhaps _N.borneensis_?

>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
> Incl.

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?

Kind regards