I doubt they too many of those, besides for you Jan, on the list.
I'm certainly not one but I try.
> No, not yet. But some colleagues intend to unite it with _N.alata_
> some day.
>
> > 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.
Yes, a N.alata I'm growing does have about the same amount of
indumentum on the growing pitcher as the N.phil.
> Not as pronounced as in _N.tentaculata_, but in general your
> observations on pitcher shape seem correct.
It is more like N.tent than N.alata though. At least with
respect to the openning of the pitcher.
> > 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.
Hmm... I can't see much difference here either. The N.phil
petioles are winged, like the N.alata, but are somewhat longer.
Not much to go on there.
> > 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_).
Perhaps it would be better to name these at subspecies rank?
There definitely should be a division between these plants.
They DO look more like N.alata than any other Nepenthes so a
subspecies seems like a good place for them. What else could
their closest relative(s) be, other than something extinct?
Dave Evans