>What about N.faicaliana in the new book? Lamb and Phillipps wrote,
>that it is considered conspecific with N.stenophylla (pg.136), although
>Adam and Wilcock wrote in their description that it is near to N.fusca.
>I have material of N.faicaliana and I have to say that it has nothing
>to do with N.fallax (N.stenophylla). It is sure near to N.fusca and it
>is a separate specie.
In order to prevent confusion when talking about "N.stenophylla", I would
propose the following nomenclature:
The plant which was called N.stenophylla by DANSER (incl. picture and
synonymizing _N.fallax_) is rather well characterized by the orbicular lid.
However, it does not at all correspond to the type and original description
of _N.stenophylla_ by MASTERS. Therefore, the former should be called:
N.stenophylla sensu DANSER (non MASTERS), or (preferably, because this is
the first unambiguous specific epithet for the plant) _N.fallax_ G.BECK.
The plant originally called _N.stenophylla_ by MASTERS is morphologically
close to _N.fusca_ from Kalimantan, and I think that all plants from Sabah
and Sarawak identified with the name N.fusca (with narrow lids) are indeed
_N.stenophylla_ MAST. Perhaps, even _N.fusca_ s.str. (i.e. the plant from
G.Kemul) is conspecific with _N.stenophylla_ MAST. To this latter species,
_N.faizaliana_ is rather closely related but details in the inflorescence
separate the two species (and indeed _N.faizaliana_ from all the other
species of Regiae). Possibly, _N.faizaliana_ is also of hybridogenic origin
but I can not yet propose a likely second parent besides _N.stenophylla_
MAST. (or N.fusca s.l.).
So we have (at least) two different plants under the name N.stenophylla:
N.stenophylla sensu DANSER (incl. subsequent authors like KURATA, TURNBULL
& MIDDLETON, and many others)
and _N.stenophylla_ MAST. (=N.fusca of KURATA, TURNBULL & MIDDLETON, & al.)
A fine example of repeated and persistent use of a name for a taxon not
including its type (nomen ambiguum). I see 3 possibilities how to proceed:
1. We stick to the original description and the (whatsoever-)type selected
by MASTERS of _N.stenophylla_ (preserved in K), and reject the misuse of
the name by DANSER and almost all subsequent authors. In this case we have
the two earliest names for the respective taxa, viz. _N.stenophylla_ MAST
(=N.fusca auct. ?non DANSER) and _N.fallax_ (=N.stenophylla auct. non
MAST.). This is what I would prefer.
2. We retypify _N.stenophylla_ (sensu DANSER) with a new type to preserve
the application of the name chosen by DANSER, in this case preferably
basing the name on the type of N.fallax, which would then become a synonym
(as proposed by DANSER). The other species (N.stenophylla MAST.) would then
become N.fusca s.lat. or even _N.fusca_. This would mean that an originally
wrong application would be conserved because subsequent authors have
accepted it. Although such a procedure would be possible with the new code,
I would accept it with reservation only, because there is extant authentic
material of N.stenophylla MAST. in K.
3. We reject N.stenophylla as a nomen ambiguum (v.s.), and use only the
later (but less ambiguous) names _N.fusca_ and _N.fallax_. This would rank
between 1. and 2. in my personal preference.
A small table may visualize the 3 concepts
Concept no. AUTHOR "narrow lid" "orbicular lid"
1 (original) MASTERS N.stenophylla N.fallax 2 (current) DANSER N.fusca
N.stenophylla 3 (revised) NEITHER N.fusca N.fallax
So you can choose what you like most. If you use concept 1 or 2, you should
always indicate the sense in which you use N.stenophylla.