Re: N.*murudensis auct., nom.nud. (s.typo, s.descr., ined.)

Jan Schlauer (
Thu, 30 May 1996 11:44:50 +0100

Dear Ch'ien,

>1. I did not find any evidence to support the claim that this is
>a hybrid.

Your following sentences are perfect evidence to support this claim:

> Not only is the plant quite homogenous (I have seen
>hundreds which differed only in coloration) over its entire
>distribution on the mountain (roughly 6900' to 7940') but, for
>much of this range,

1040 ft are only 312 m difference in elevation. At roughly 2000 m this
is a rather narrow montane zone. Confined to a single mountain, this
can not even be called a "range" but only a population, very probably
constituting one single clone with its vegetative offspring.

>it is far more abundant than any possible
>parental species, such as N. tentaculata, and grows in some areas
>(such as the "rock garden") where none of the latter species is
>to be found.

We call that hybrid vigour (which is, admittedly not frequent in
_Nepenthes_ but still not impossible, cf. N.*hookeriana).

>2. In places where it does grow alongside N. tentaculata (such as
>near the church at about 7000'), the two species remain distinct
>and I did not observe a single hybrid or variation between the

The two seem so close to each other that any back cross would be classified
as _N.tentaculata_, just depending on what you *want* to see (cf. the
plants from Kinabalu mentioned previously, possibly also belonging to a
similar taxon).

>3. There are several differences in the morphology of these two
>species which I feel are significant.(...)

This is the reason why your plant was supposed to be of hybrid origin, and
not "pure" _N.tentaculata_.

>I did not see any N. reinwardtiana anywhere on the mountain. How
>many is "them" and were the leaves decurrent? I have seen N.
>tentaculata varieties (such as in Sulawesi) which sometimes have
>eyespots on the back of the throat exactly as in N.
>reinwardtiana. It may be possible that this trait can be
>displayed occasionally in other species which are closely

...especially after introgression by _N.reinwardtiana_.;-)

My impression is that the Murud plant is a stabilized population of hybrid
origin, or hybridogenic species (like N.*hookeriana). One parent (i.e. the
still perfectly sympatric _N.tentaculata_) can be formulated almost with
certainty. The other one (?_N.reinwardtiana_) can only be guessed at the
moment. But still the plants should IMHO not be treated formally as a
distinct, independent species. The direction and repetition of the original
hybridization event is immaterial for nomenclatural (and to some degree
also taxonomic) purposes. As the plant is from G.Murud (not "Murudi"), the
epithet should be "murudensis", not "murud*i*ensis".

Kind regards