NEPENTHES - Flora Malesiana further comments

Jan Schlauer (
Tue, 13 Sep 1994 10:30:03 +0100

Dear Matthew,

> 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.

Sorry, but are we really talking about the same illustration?
In TAMIN & HOTTA, DIV.& DYN. PL. LIFE SUMATRA :77, Fig.1 (1986), I can
17 leaf apices, 10 leaves with venation, and 11 lids. They only forgot lid
glandulation, but it seems even you have forgotten this in your
illustrations of _N.mirabilis_ (JEBB, SCI. NEW GUIN. 17:33, Fig. 16 & :12,
Fig.3, 1991).

>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,

Sorry, but the features you mentioned are not too helpful for me to
distinguish the two, as

1. I could hardly imagine a Sumatran species which deserved the attribute "
ventricose-tubular pitchers " more than _N.singalana_ (cf. even the poor
remnants of the isotype of _N.singalana_ in L!)
2. The peristome of _N.singalana_ is by no means irregular. Please consider
the following specimens (of _N.singalana_): SCHIFFNER 1990 (L) from
G.Singgalang (one of the syntypes of the obsolete "N.pectinata"), and
FREY-WYSSLING 107 (BO) from Kerinci peak.

There seems to be a wide range of transitional forms leading to the extreme
ones of N Sumatra.

>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.

In this case, there is no problem at all as N.rubromaculata KURATA is a
later (i.e. illegitimate) homonym of _Nepenthes_*_rubromaculata_
HORT.VEITCH ex WILSON, GARD. CHRON. 2.SER. 8:441 (1877).

Sometimes strict observance of the rules (ICBN) can even make life easier! ;-)

BTW: it should be "eymae" (KURATA4s fault)

>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?

Sure, there are certainly a whole lot of _N.gracilis_ around in that
region, but this will not help to determine what is meant with the name
_N.neglecta_. In this case, only type material is suitable, and because the
type population has assumedly been destroyed this means there are only very
few specimens.

I have a cibachrome (loan from K was impossible, unfortunately) of
F.W.BURBIDGE s.n. (K, one of the syntypes) collected 1877-78 on Labuan,
"This is the only fld. specimen I know of J.M.M.", a fragment of a long
shoot with a male inflorescence. Because of the comment by MACFARLANE
himself this should be selected as the lectotype of this taxon.

This specimen should be compared with type material of _N.hirsuta_: LOW
s.n. (K), collected at "Lawas River (Borneo)", one sheet bears a long shoot
fragment, one pitcher cut open longitudinally, and the label with the
comment "SARAWAK" added with a pencil. I could hardly find any significant
difference, i.e. DANSER4s guess (NB: he has not seen the specimens!) seems
to be justified.

The leaf base should be much more decurrent in a long shoot of
_N.gracilis_. The margins of the foliar portion are usually more parallel
in that species.

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

Would you mind to tell me which collections you mean?

> 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.

A really interesting hypothesis. But does this necessitate any "changes to
the Thai taxa"?

> Is Schmid-Hollinger on the bulletin board?

No, not on this one. I have already sent him the outline of your revision,

Kind regards