Re: N. * murudensis
Fri, 31 May 1996 23:39:29 +0800 (MYT)

Dear Jan,

Thanks for the corrections and useful comments.

>Your following sentences are perfect evidence to support this

Perhaps I should not have said a "pure" species - I agree that N.
*murudensis is probably originally of hybridogenic origin,
however I believe that it has formed a stable interbreeding
population. My argument was intended to show that it is not a
hybrid which is continually being "remade" by parental species
(as in N. *hookeriana).

>1040 ft are only 312 m difference in elevation. At roughly 2000
>m this is a rather narrow montane zone.

True, but one must consider also that this is as large a
distribution as most other species on this mountain. The rolling
ridgetops and summit 'bowl' on G. Murud actually make the area
within this elevation range quite large. Aren't some
other species (e.g. N. burbidgeae) restricted to
small zones on single mountains also?

>...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.

I strongly doubt that the plants of this population are from a
single clone as I found seedlings and small plants of N
*murudensis in all stages of growth which displayed their
characteristic lower pitchers.

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

This could explain why the plants are able to grow in more
exposed, harsher areas that N. tentaculata are not found in.
According to Johannes' notes, hybrid vigor seems to persist after
at least 2 generations, but what could be expected from a wild
population that could have been interbreeding for many more

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

My argument here was separate from the preeding paragraphs and
was intended towards claims that this taxon may just be a variety
of N. tentaculata.

> The direction and repetition of the original
>hybridization event is immaterial for nomenclatural (and to some
>degree also taxonomic) purposes.

Would not the recurrence of the original hybridization result in
the population of this taxon being unable to drift towards a
distinct phenotype (which I feel it has)?

Best wishes,