> So Bruce Salmon and Ricky Maulder are now publishing the new Neps
>they discovered a few years ago when they went to Sumatra! When and where
>was this published? I can't believe Bruce didn't tell me this! Did it
>come out recently? Hey kiwis, send my congratulations to both!
Christoph apparently could not remember, so I have found it out myself in
the meanwhile. It appeared in the most recent issue of CPN. TNX for the
tip, Andreas; it reached me after I have received photocopies from Joachim
(TNX Joe!), however. (BTW: Schlechte Karten fuer "die Schwarze", oder?)
First, the good news: the authors have apparently perceived in the
meanwhile that their "N.dempoensis" (nom.nud., not validated in the paper,
which spares us another synonym) is indeed conspecific with _N.spathulata_.
However, _N.xiphioides_ seems to be conspecific with _N.gymnamphora_, I'm
afraid. The mentioned/illustrated differences appear rather weak for
specific segregation, especially if several populations of _N.gymnamphora_
from Sumatra or even from the whole range of this species (which does reach
S Borneo!) are compared.
I am not really happy to see the recently trashed name N.pectinata
succeeded by a new one like a cut off Hydra's head (BTW, if one considered
the "pectinate" forms of _N.gymnamphora_ as distinct from the type,
N.pectinata would have been the appropriate name for these, cf. also the
lectotype of N.p.!). Seems like taxonomists are not satisfied with only two
names for the two species _N.singalana_ and _N.gymnamphora_ (cf. etiam
N.junghuhnii, N.diatas, N.rosulata...).
_N.mikei_ on the other hand is a rather interesting and apparently really
distinct species. It may well be that this is the answer ("no!") to the
question about _N.gracillima_ from Sumatra. But I would have preferred to
see the nomen nudum N.minutissima (apparently never published but
astonishingly well-known among "Nepentheologists") validated rather than a
new name for the same plant.
In spite of this minor uneasiness, send my congratulations to both (if you
meet them somehow, anyone), too. The descriptions are accurate and detailed
(not the awful one-line "... affinis, sed ... differt." kind of stuff) and
the pictures are really nice. In the light of present evidence, and
contrary to my previous (not-yet-informed) posting, both names are
obviously formally valid (even if N.x. is perhaps a taxonomic synonym).
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused (once again *inexcusable*, of