NEPENTHES - Flora Malesiana Revision

Matthew Jebb (
Mon, 12 Sep 94 12:00:22 +0100

Dear Jan,
In response to your Further details on the Flora Malesiana revision.

1. N.adnata.
The Tamin & Hotta illustration lacks what we would regard as
important taxonomic details, namely the sometimes emarginate leaf apex, leaf
ventaion and lid glandulation and especially the lid shape.

5. N.aristolochioides.
Meijer 6542 will be the type, and the pitchers are truly spectacular
on that specimen (L, but currently on loan at K). Some of the important
details of this species are the lid glands, which face adaxially, and the
peltate scales and branched indumentum hairs. A collection by Robinson &
Kloss makes a total of 3 collections to date. No living material is known
as far as I am aware.

8. N.bongso.
The amount of material available compared to Danser's day indicates
that the 2 taxa merge together.

19. N.diatas.
The ventricose-tubular pitchers and regular peristome of this
species help to distinguish it from N.singalana, although it does of course
belong to the same Sumatran group (singalana, bongso, densiflora,
spathulata, diatas).

24 N.glabrata (sorry about the spellings - the dangers of retyping into Email!)
rubromaculata is another here, like the eymai problem, but in this
case I think it is a later name. I believe some of the antagonism over
these names (especially dentata-hamata) was because Kostermans believed that
Kurata had named N.campanulata from the specimen which Kostermans had
annotated "Nepenthes spec.nov.". Since Kurata didn't prepare any
publication in the intervening years I hardly believe the species can be
considered as having been stolen, however, it was and Kostermans then
encouraged Turnbull & Middleton to go for the pre-emptive strike....

25 N.neglecta
Have you seen some other material? We saw material collected by
Anthea Phillipps and others from the mainland of Sabah, opposite the type
locality, and this both fits the Macfarlane description, and falls within a
N.gracilis grouping... However we are willing to reconsider if you think you
can see a bigger split here?

27b N.gymnamphora
We have not looked at the material from Kalimantan in relation to
N.borneensis, and when I am in Bogor this winter I shall look at it from
that perspective. I think you have a good point here...., certainly a
satisfactory solution to a troubling problem.

28. N.hamata
I have tried wityhout success to find a copy of the pre-printed
Reinwardtia in the Kew Library - it is certainly with some specimens, but
this may have been done much later. The only proof of its effective date of
publication will be the presence of this pre-print among a library's reprint
collection, with an accession date stamped on it, otherwise the Singapore
Gardens Bulletin would be effective much earlier.....

34. N.junghunii
There are several mid-Sumatran collections which fall into this species.

56. N.rafflesiana
No don't worry nothing is being shifted here - I think I was going
on to describe var. longi-cirrhosa being reduced to N.sumatrana, and didn't
dlete the Incl. bit.

Thai and Philippine material reveals several grassland adapted
species with sub-terranean storage organs that reflect an evolutionary
divergence which no doubt dates from the extensive Pleistocene
grassland-Savanna plains.

Is Schmid-Hollinger on the bulletin board? Certainly we would be
keen not to generate confusion if another paper on Sumatran species is
imminent. I believe Andreas Wistuba also has a paper in press on Sumatran
material, but again I have no knowledge of the specfics as yet, and await a
reply to my last letter.

Best Wishes,


Matthew Jebb,
School of Botany,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2, Tel: +353-1-702 1421
IRELAND. Fax: +353-1-702 1147