Re: N. alata vs. N. phillippinensis

SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:34:44

Dear _Nepenthes_ taxonomists,

> we may have touched on this already. I realize the latter is considered a
> synonym

No, not yet. But some colleagues intend to unite it with _N.alata_
some day.

> , but can someone describe what N. philippinensis is lookes like?

In The Philippine Journal of Science, 33,2:128 (1927), J.M.MACFARLANE
writes in his key to the Philippine species of _Nepenthes_:

"
a1. Lid of pitcher without internal keel or processes.
b1. Leaves sessile, longitudinal veins of lamina 2 to 4 pairs.
c1. Nerves of laminae 2 to 3 pairs, pedicels 1-flowered.
_N.blancoi_ BLUME
c2. Nerves of laminae 4 pairs, pedicels 2- to 3-flowered
_N.philippinensis_ MACFARLANE
b2. Leaves petiolate. longitudinal veins of lamina 2 to 4 pairs.
Nerves of laminae 3 pairs, pedicels 2- to 1-flowered
_N.copelandii_ MERRILL

(...p.129)
a2. Lid of pitcher with internal keel or processes.
b1. Leaves lanceolate, with 3 to 4 pairs of veins
_N.alata_ BLANCO
(...)
"

N.blancoi and N.copelandii are generally considered synonyms of
_N.alata_. Therefore, _N.philippinensis_ overlaps in many respects
with the former species. However, the 2-flowered pedicels (also in
the upper ones in the inflorescence) tend to be a constant and
sufficiently distinct character separating this species (i.e. at
least those specimens of it that I have examined so far) from
_N.alata_, in which the upper pedicels are without exception (known
to me) 1-flowered.

> The reason I am asking is because I grow both of them and I don't
> believe that the plant I have as N. philippinensis looks like an alata
> at all. Sure, superficially the plant could be confused with an alata
> but there are several distinct differences that I can see. First, my
> alata has an appendage on the frot part of the lid like N. maxima, and
> a hint of a basal crest on the hood.
> the philippinensis has a basal crest that is almost as pronounced as
> in
> pilosa or maxima, but there is no appendage.

This character is not constant in _N.alata_. The specimens from
Sumatra (which some colleagues want to separate as a distinct
species) apparently always lack the lid appendage.

> When the pitchers are young
> they are covered with a furry indumentum that has led me to think that the
> pitchers aborted only to find that they have grown to maturity, alata has
> very little, and is almost glabrous.

Indumentum is also rather variable. I would not rely on this.

> The alata pitcher is hipped with a globose base and a more or less
> round mouth opening, whereas the philippinensis pitcher has a rather
> uniform unhipped oval shape to it with an oval mouth opening much like
> N. tentaculata.

Not as pronounced as in _N.tentaculata_, but in general your
observations on pitcher shape seem correct.

> The leaves of the two are very
> similar but the petioles of the philippinensis is winged, which is different
> from distinctly petioled leaf od N. alata.

There are forms of the latter (see the key above) with sessile leaf
bases.

> Lastly, and I realize pitcher color is regarded only minorly in
> taxonomy.

Right.

> You can see how I feel that the two plants are distinct and should be
> considered seperate species.

I am inclined to feel the same way (at least if the Sumatran
representatives should be considered a species separate from
_N.alata_).

Kind regards
Jan