Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:32:38 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg910$foo@default> Subject: Re: N. vent./burkei refried
Dear Dave, Rich, Trent, et al.,
> But still, I have seen greater variation amongst individual clones
> of N. maxima, N. rafflesiana, and N. mirabilis. Like you, I would
> like to know what scientifically differentiates N. burkei as a
> species from N. ventricosa Why is it not considered a variation of N
> ventricosa, as N. echinostoma is a variation of N. mirabilis?
First of all, forget 90% of the plants in cultivation labelled "N.
burkei". They are plain simple _N. ventricosa_ wrongly identified,
possibly with the intention to sell two "species" instead of one.
Apparently, the true _N. burkei_ is a rather local species, very
*very* rarely grown, and almost never sold. Therefore, at least 80%
of all published "burkei"-illustrations show _N. ventricosa_. The only
reliable picture is the drawing in Gardeners' Chronicle in connection
and direct reference to the protologue of _N. burkei_ (and of course
the moderately numerous "clones" of this illustration).
In the light of recent research (or if you like, according to the
opinion of some taxonomists), _N. burkei_ is a member of a series
of vicariants beginning with _N. ventricosa_ in the N (Luzon) and
ending with _N. treubiana_ and _N. insignis_ in the S (New Guinea),
other members being _N. merrilliana_, _N. danseri_, and another
species from the Philippines yet to be described (and perhaps also
some species from Borneo). _N. burkei_ is closest (both
geographically and morphologically) to _N. ventricosa_, but the
seemingly wide gap between _N. burkei_ and _N. merrilliana_ has been
narrowed considerably by recent collections from the area between the
two species. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume that _N.
burkei_ is conspecific with _N. ventricosa_ or a recent hybrid
involving the latter.
> Similarly, does N petiolata really exist?
Yes.
> Every photo I've seen of it looks like a variety of N. alata.
Every photo published so far (but wait for the March issue of CPN!)
is *not* _N. petiolata_. Only the drawing published in Danser's
monograph is the true species.
> However,
> I do not see any N.truncata in the supposed hybrid and it looks more
> like all the other photos of N.alata I have seen than even my plants of
> N.alata! Is that really N.truncata * N.alata???
Sometimes it is difficult to judge hybrids from photos. Maybe the
authors did have more evidence than is visible on the photo to assume
that the particular plant is a hybrid.
> > I guess while I'm at it, I'll throw in another question - namely - what
> > are the issues regarding whether or not N. philippinensis is a species or
> > a variation of alata? Jebb and Cheek lump it in with alata but don't
> > give any details.
I think _N. philippinensis_ was listed under the dubious species
rather than as a synonym of _N. alata_ in the mentioned paper.
> Well, it figures. I can't see the difference between N.burkei and
> N. ventricosa, but they can.
Do you have the illustration(s) in Gardeners' Chronicle?
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:30 PST